User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What are you doing? Are you paid for patrolling articles?

Since three months from now, in random periods I am changing the 666 article. And you are always there, after 5 minutes ,in order to revert my changes. This is impressive! This shows that you are not doing any other job than patrolling articles. Is your job to protect 666 number articles? Are you paid for it? Xicsies (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When I edit articles, they go on my watchlist. Articles prone to vandalism (eg Number of the Beast, 666 (number), Tamarindo, Costa Rica, Virtual assistant), and those particularly interesting to me (eg, Disputationes), have flags in my mind when I see on my watchlist that they have been changed. When someone makes an edit to a page which is not an improvement, I promptly revert it. I am not paid to do this; the whole point of WP is persons working together to make a good encyclopedia. An important part of that is ensuring it doesn't go down-hill. When you add something that is spurious and un- or poorly-sourced to an article that is on my watchlist, don't be surprised at its speedy reversion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You avoid my question. Since 3 months from now, you are surprisingly online in order to revert my changes every time I change the article, and I am doing it in random periods. You are also the only one who reverts me, no one else does it. This can be seen in my contributions.

Revision as of 22:58, 23 November 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 23:17, 23 November 2008 (your undo)

Response time 19 minutes

Revision as of 19:54, 12 November 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 21:27, 12 November 2008 (your undo)

Response time 30 minutes

Revision as of 22:46, 8 November 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 03:50, 9 November 2008 (your undo)

Response time 4:30 hours

Revision as of 17:17, 15 October 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 19:15, 15 October 2008 (your undo)

Response time 2 hours

Revision as of 20:52, 1 October 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 20:56, 1 October 2008 (your undo)

Response time 4 minutes

Revision as of 13:21, 27 September 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 19:17, 27 September 2008 (your undo)

Response time 6 hours

Revision as of 20:28, 13 September 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 20:38, 13 September 2008 (your undo)

Response time 10 minutes

Revision as of 13:16, 3 September 2008 (my edit)

Revision as of 21:04, 3 September 2008 (your undo)

Response time 8 hours

Your average response time is 3 hours, days or nights! This is amazing! This shows that you never sleep, and that the only think you are doing is patrolling these kinds of articles. If this occupies 100% of your time, and you are not paid for it, how do you earn your living? Xicsies (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a student, and I have time enough to spend on here. But the times aren't all that random, really. Most of my edits are between 1900 and 0000 hours. And I'm sure plenty of users have many more edits per month than I have. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Killing Death

I never said at the time but these two edits are my favourite edits ever. That article used to sum up why IP editors do not make articles. Sometimes I would just think about it and get angry. For the two linked reasons above: You are a legend. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :d It's wonderful to know my effort is so well-liked, at least by some ;) Have a great day! Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I semi-randomly stumbled across your talk page here (from open source hardware), but must agree. That excessive list overwhelmed the article, and removing it refocused the article to the topic. It was a very good edit. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mrand. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You see, I am new at WP, walk through the various user pages and think, who is this "Carl.bunderson", go to your user page and discussion and get some insight... High appreciation for your courage and consistency. WP lives from people like you. Inawe (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind words. They've definitely put a smile on my face. I appreciate it a lot. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

St Paul

Sorry bout the misformatting. Just now. Also, you mentioned-- "I think that persons who dislike this outcome to raise cain (cane?) [sic] about it with ease". Even though I was a little hard on Deacon just now, for what it's worth, I'm inclined to just let it stand and be done with it. Maybe it was just an example of Ignore all rules. St Paul is out of line with Manual of Style, but it's now totally in line with WP:V, which was my main concern. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the formatting, I did fix it, and its not that big a deal. Just clarity's sake. And sorry the bit you quoted was so incoherent. I've fixed it now. I think I was so concerned about the spelling (of which I'm still unsure) that I didn't bother to properly word the sentence. And I wasn't directing my "persons who dislike this outcome" at you. It seems you're in the same boat as I am--satisfied if not happy with the outcome, but unhappy with how we got there. Carl.bunderson (talk)

AfD nomination of Coming Persecutions

I have nominated Coming Persecutions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming Persecutions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

suggestions

I was about to write to you, but you got started already. Yes, continue wickifying the refs. You do not need to use the "cite" format, but remove all the op cit, which are unnecessary if there is only one work by the author(s), and for loc cit, just repeat the reference. Also make sure the first use of the ref. has he full title--I fixed one of these, but I think there should be some more.

as for section headings, what you have now is much better & just what I was going to advise. --but now put the text in italics, centered, at the top of each section. Believe it or not, people !vote without reading the articles, and might well have thought the entire article was mainly an extended quote. They may also have thought it would be a right wing evangelical rant--because we do get quite a number of these. Additionally, everything that looks like it might deal with the Jews and the NT gets special attention from the Messianic Christians here and their more numerous opposers from various direction.

It would help to have 2 general references--an undergrad level book on the NT in general, for example, and one on Eschatology--If possible from university presses.

As for the writing--you need to specifically define parousia and other technical terms at least informally at the first mention--even "eschatological"--even if they are linked. Assume almost total Biblical illiteracy, & a total ignorance of theology. You might ask why someone with so little background would want to read the article--well, because of the AfD. I would also try to wickify a few more common terms as well at their first appearance. Now, this is a litle harder--is here a PD illustration possible--one of Jesus talking to his disciples in almost any context would do, but I think you might be able to find one of his commissioning the disciples, because it was a common theme for Medieval illustration. It makes the article look less technical. It is in the other direction possible to put a few key terms in parenthesis in the greek. --maybe even the verses. This is of course relevant because of the ambiguities of English translation

After this, I'll be glad to support if you want to go further forward or back. I once thought of doing articles on individual verses, but that's asking too much. Named sections is better. DGG (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've done all I can do in the immediate future, ie without going to the good library that's an hour away. I can find more generic texts, and the original Greek, to add later.

The references are cleaned up, and I added a picture (my first attempt at doing so--if you have tips on how to do that better, they'd be appreciated). I added more wikilinks and made attempts, albeit pathetic, and expanding on eschatology and parousia.

How does one centre text? I don't see how to do either above or below the editing box. The verses have been italicized though.

I added a small bit from a NT book from Eerdmans. N.T. Wright has a section on eschatology in Jesus and the Victory of God, starting at page 202, and Wright is so fabulous that there must be something we can take from him, but his work is also so dense that I just couldn't figure out how to make it WP-friendly. Thank you for your direction/help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

December 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please delete every single external link from the Number of the Beast section. They are all inappropriate. After all, the BBC is a media company, as is Phenomena Magazine, while the former may support an article (in your eyes) because it is anti yet the latter may not because it is neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka (talk • contribs) 12:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the External links and conflict-of-interest policies. You are promoting your own website, which is not allowed under COI policy. Adding links to the same homepage on different wikipedia pages is spamming, and will not be tolerated. If you sincerely believe these have value for wikipedia users, please submit them to the talk page. If a consensus is formed that they are useful, they will be added. But under no other circumstances will they be permitted. I will examine the EL on the Number of the Beast, some of them may well be poor links. But this in no way makes it permissible for one to spam wikipedia to promote a website with which you are affiliated. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

Here's the how-to page for Twinkle: Wikipedia:Twinkle. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Afghanistan

Hi, I wanted to point out some of the absurdity of Bayrak's attempt to use his own uninformative translation (with the aim of removing "Persian," even though scholars know well enough to translate "Ajam" as "Persian" in this context). Unfortunately, I cannot edit Talk:Afghanistan. Do you know why the talk page is protected, and when it will be unprotected? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been a long history of vandalism on Afghanistan and its talk page, and the talk page is semi-protected, so that only established users can edit it. I believe it is indefinitely semi-protected. Once you've had your account for four days, you should be able to edit the talk page. If you want to edit it before then, you can request unprotection at WP:RPP. Cheers. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clement

Could you have a look at the discussion of labeling Clement's martyrdom as "Legendary": Talk:Pope_Clement_I#.22legendary_martyrdom.22. Am I on to something, or am I completely off base here? Thanks. Dgf32 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've popped on over and added my thoughts. You're on to something, I think. "Legendary" is objectively POV. Sorry I hadn't entered the fray earlier; from the discussion I wasn't sure exactly what was going on, until I looked at the diffs. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

John the Baptist

Carl, I had legitimate reason to revert the dating system on this article in respect that user Bunk78 had violated Wikipedia NPOV policy, as seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_the_Baptist&diff=cur&oldid=111310641.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhenYou'reAJet (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 

Oh please, do not presume to teach me about NPOV policy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well maybe I'll have to teach you about WP:ERA? As you obviously don't know about that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ERA#Year_numbering_systems). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhenYou'reAJet (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not NPOV policy, as you've been mistakenly touting. And the very page you quoted, also says, "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." You have not substantive reason; you come off as a POV-pushing Christian. You need a substantive reason to change a long-standing consensus of a style on a page such as this. Your petulancy will not be tolerated. No-one appreciates someone making a big a scene as this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, and wrong. I was mistakenl;y arguing for NPOV for a long time, forgetting I meant WP:ERA. I mentioned WP:ERA in my later revision, sorry for the confusion. However, I DO have a substantiative reason. The revision made bt Bunk78 on 27 Reb 2007 vioalted this policy, I was merely reverting his revision. That person changed a long astanding consensus of nearly six years (2001-2007). I was changing a short-term consensus that was made for stylistic reasons, not legitimate words. In other words, that Bunk78 was a pushy "Secular" POV user, I am merely reverting his edits based on that policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhenYou'reAJet (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

His edit was made nearly a year ago; that is stable, and that it hasn't been argued about, is indicative of consensus. You can't choose to single-handedly restore an old consensus because you dislike the new one. Personally I think the whole BCE/CE issue is a load of pc-bull, but you are going about changing it in entirely the wrong way. I could care less whether Bunk's edit was "legitimate" or not; yours, the one we are dealing with now, is not. You could have gone about this using the talk page, and been met much more agreeably. And please, sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert again. This applies to both of you. Again, don't touch the article; otherwise, blocks will be handed out. Thank you, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Carl has cotninued the edit war, against Master's words. Carl, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to report it.WhenYou'reAJet (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The 3rr extends only one day, and there is no demonstrable consensus for your edit. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a 3RR warning; I just didn't want you two messing around with that article any more. Whether or not there is consensus should be discussed on the talk page, and no edits should be made until an agreement is reached. I reverted your edit (that doesn't mean I support the current version, but that's how it was when I stepped in); I'm not going to block, as you misinterpreted my warning. Please don't make any more edits until something has been agreed on.

If there's anything else I can do, feel free to ask. Cheers, and thank you for staying civil! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I figured that essentially, waiting a few days would clear it up. The problem, in my eyes, is that there is no demonstrable consensus for either; and in that case, we maintain the status quo, which is BCE/CE. Under what circumstances would you say "something has been agreed upon"? We seem to be in something of a deadlock, now. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been doing about this, MoP. One user may not hold-up consensus and force a page to go his way. No-one supports Jet in his position. I intend to revert to the status quo ante tomorrow, absent a reply prohibiting this course of action. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

JBap

deminitely not you. The newbie. Sorry if I wrote it in a way that was unclear. Definitely not you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was pretty sure it was at the newb, but wanted to make sure I hadn't been doing something grevious all this time. Have a good day! Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the guy is an SPA here only to disrupt i.e. trolling, the only thing you can do wrong is pay him any attention! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that way. MoP warned both of us, and it seems to have quited him, at least for the time being. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Rav Aviner

Why did you remove the link to the Rav Aviner official blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillouz (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of reasons. It had already been removed by another user, who seems to have good judgement. Also, blogs should not be added, though in this case if it is official it could be allowed. However, looking over the site, there does not seem to be anything which is unquestionably indicative of its being his official site. Hope this helps. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add it again. It is his official blog. I know for a fact. Dillouz (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.255.125 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know for a fact it's his official blog? It needs to be verifiable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks for your greeting. Likewise Carl, best wishes to you and yours at this time (and always). :) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Although in delay of 16 days (or 3 days according the old calendar), Merry Christmas to you too, Carl. And a happy new year! Xicsies (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi, I would not normally touch another editor's user page, however I did so ([[1]])to revert vandalism - hope this was OK. Springnuts (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright, thank you, Spring. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeshifter

I've started an edit-warring report about him, in case you want to comment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Timeshifter_reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_.29. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Ronz. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nativity

Did you see the section below? Once he resumed, I reluctantly reported him at ANI. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, I just thought my comment fit in better in the section above. Would it be helpful if I contributed at AN/I? Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, at this stage anyway. I've never done one before, but I don't think all parties need to comment, especially when there's so much on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry if it seemed like I was disparaging/discounting/not paying attention to your comment on his talk; that wasn't my intention. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to make sure we were good. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

eHealth

I think your cuts were a bit drastic. Perhaps we should revert them and have a discussion on the ehealth discussion page - you eliminated all of the definitions and links to many of the key stakeholders.--Karl.brown (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; I'll revert and discuss. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

遊びセクス

嬉しいけど君は私が嫌い　Kairaiseiken (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC) あそう

Clement of Rome

Carl,

I am in something of a quandary as to how to proceed. The article that I linked to from Clement of Rome is my own, and I have no defense against the charge of "self-promo". But the article is well-researched, and it bears on the subject at hand. There are certainly readers today who are interested in the usage of Synoptic Gospel material in the writings of the church fathers. Due to its length, (twelve pages as a WORD document), it is too long to add as a separate section under Clement of Rome. So my question is: How does one contribute such an essay to Wikipedia? Or is such discussion completely forbidden? I am giving you the link again, so that you may examine the material. And I will abide by your decision. But I appreciate any advice you may provide in this matter. http://www.mortalresurrection.com/2008/12/25/63/#more-63 Mortalresurrection (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at your site; it looks good, John. Well-written and referenced. I'll suggest on the talk page for Epistles of Clement that it be added there. (Since your site is about 1 Clement, it works better there than on the article about Clement himself.) You might want to comment there as you did here. As long as no-one objects, we should be able to add it in a day or two or so. You'd also be welcome to add content to Epistles of Clement or Clement of Rome, though you'd have to use RS until your book is published; til then, you're website is good enough for the EL section, but not to be used as a RS. It would be great to see the page on his epistle expanded upon. Thanks for asking about how to proceed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

not sure about the 1st paragraph of the 'life' section of this page-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Regis surely the mention of buddhism needs a reference. (apologies if this is outside 'wiki' normal practice you were the first user i found who may have an interest in this area, please feel free to delete) Thanks

It was good of you to ask me about it, thanks. I'll look into it in a sec. In the future though, put new threads at the bottom of talk pages, and sign with four tildes (~). And get an account, lol. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CBA

Hi,

I would like to know the reason behind your removing of "Chinese Basketball Alliance" from the CBA disambiguation page.

Thanks.

--K kc chan (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dab pages are meant to point users to the page they are actually getting to. If something does not have a wikipedia page, it is inappropriate to list it on a dab page. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are many other pages without a wikipedia page. Why not remove them as well?

Thanks.

--K kc chan (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They should be removed. The problem is, I often only look at diffs, so I don't realize if there are other things wrong with the page, than just the last change. I'll go and fix it now. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. --K kc chan (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for enquiring. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Raph Pack

I notice that you have been removing the link to the "Pre-Raph Pack" from a number of pages with the edit summary "rv spam". When I first saw this being added I almost did the same, but when I checked I realised that this is a venture created by Birmingham City Council in collaboration with the Pre-Raphaelite society. The content is written by Professor Stephen Wildman [2]. I don't think that this can reasonably be called spam. It's true that it's aimed at school students but since these are among the users of Wikipedia, and its provenance is impeccable it seems an appropriate link to have. Paul B (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we add it to Renaissance painting? I think your re-adding to Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was fine, too, but I wouldn't add it to the individual painters' pages. Links should be matched to their subject articles; painters' pages should have ELs about that individual painter, not the whole movement of which he was a part. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I do recognize that it is a good site. My calling it spam was in reference to the manner in which it was added, rather than the nature of the site itself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It has no place added to Renaissance painting. The Pre-Raphaelites are a Victorian art group founded in 1848, 300 years after the Renaissance. The reason it was added to the articles of named artists is that each of these is given a biography in the website. Paul B (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was misunderstanding it. Sorry. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

St. Agnes of Rome - request to Undo a change

Hello there. Why did you remove the link to the article by author Grace Andreacchi - it is not 'blogspam' but a very informative article by a well-established author detailing St. Agnes's history in literature, and including a new translation of the hymn 'Agnes beatae virginis' which is very hard to find otherwise. Would you please consider undoing this, and re-instating the link? The article would be very useful to people interested in knowing more about the appearance of St. Agnes of Rome in literature. Thank you for your attention. Elisabethserafimovski (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll re-add it. Since it Andreacchi has her own WP page, I suppose we can allow her blog posts in the EL. Thank you for being so kind and understanding, Ms Serafimovski. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

St. Lawrence of Rome

Hello again Mr. Bunderson. I ask you to please reconsider the link to Grace Andreacchi's martyr play 'Lawrence', which is a serious drama closely based on the texts regarding Lawrence's maryrdom. This play was published earlier this year in the Catholic journal ' Dappled Things'. The author is well-regarded and widely published. There are not many representations of St. Lawrence in literature, so this one is certainly of interest. Thank you for your attention. Elisabethserafimovski (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This one, I honestly don't think should be added. Note that if it does go back in, it should just be listed under the ELs; inserting links to other sites in the actual body of articles is frowned upon. But, my reasoning for re-instating it: I just don't think fictional portrayals of persons should be among ELs on their page; ELs should specifically be things that are going to teach more about the subject, and as well crafted as they might be, plays are works of fiction. If TS Eliot wanted to put a link to the text of Murder in the Cathedal on Thomas a Becket, I'd tell him no too. So at least you're in good company ;) Have a good day, Elisabeth. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, Carl. Thanks for reconsidering the Agnes link. Regarding the 'Lawrence' play, you may well be right, but my thinking was as follows: The 'Other' category' contains only a reference to St. Lawrence in Boccaccio's Decameron, which is, of course, also a work of fiction, so I thought this section had been created to indicate 'other' appearances of the saint in cultural references in general, and literature in particular. According to which, Grace Andreacchi's play would be a valuable addition. I don't see why T.S.Eliot's play wouldn't be of interest to people researching Thomas a Becket either, although certainly not central to the saint's life per se, surely the importance of that saint's image in cultural history is also part of the story. Indeed, you will find the reference to the Eliot play on Thomas Becket's Wiki page under 'Aftermath and cultural references'. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. At any rate, does not the Boccaaccio reference then also seem out of place? For people interested in literature and cultural history, the influence and representation of the saints is surely not irrelevant. Thank you for your attention. Elisabethserafimovski (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I hadn't thought about distinguishing between mentioning it and providing an EL to it. Re-instate it, just without the link to the text. I was mostly focusing on not having an EL inside the text of the article. Other/Culture reference sections are indeed the place to mention notable appearances in fiction and other media. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl. I think that's a good decision.Elisabethserafimovski (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Elisabeth. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Praiseandworship

If a user blanks their page, there's very few reasons to restore it. --Onorem♠Dil 04:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We might as well at least invite them not to hide those things that reflect poorly on themselves, as the rest of us have the decency to do. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make the suggestion, but don't restore the material yourself. --Onorem♠Dil 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think its reasonable to do it once. At least I don't escalate anymore, as I used to... carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

En.wiki Bans

It was the result of administering of the kind that a taste is given here: Sysop_abuse_on_Greek_Wikipedia. It has been an unfortunate period for the Greek Wikipedia. -- pvasiliadis  20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rktect

Thanks. I hope he takes your advice. Have you seen his web search on me, OR and Rktect? And his posting a website (which is mine, yes, but not a good idea). I have tried my best with him, if he can't see that all the editors who comment on his edits as OR can't be wrong, I'm not sure what to do next. dougweller (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) I did; I wasn't sure how to respond. I guess I should tell him that's not a diff. I'm not sure what to do either. I, too, hope he will get the opinions of uninvolved editors, so he'll see we aren't just a couple of guys trying to persecute him. Is this something that RfC or RfA could deal with, if it comes to that? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could seek to have him blocked for posting your website, right? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that. However, I think ANI is the best bet. He has a history of being blocked for OR, he ignores any requests to stop using talkpages as a forum, etc. It's likely but not definite that going to ANI would get a response. I know that if I ran into something like that at ANI where I hadn't been involved, I'd block him myself. But there is an alternative to a block. He's banned from metrology at the moment, for instance. His edits are definitely a net deficit even if some of them are ok. dougweller (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever you decide on, I'll do what I can to help. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment on Articles for deletion Western Semitic Calender.

I saw it. Doesn't change my vote. There's no indication "Western Semitic Calendar" exists. And learn to sign your posts, or I will stop deigning to answer them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

American Mathematical Monthly [http://www.timeemits.com/AoA_Articles/Ancient_Egyptian_Calendar-gr.htm Enoch calendar

Enoch's age of 365 years in Genesis relates to the Egyptian Sothic Cycle of 1,461 years. Other scriptures such as Hebrews 11:5 in the New Testament also mention Enoch. Extra reading in some very old Jewish writings, namely the three books of Enoch, specify that Enoch assigned 364 days to the calendar year. The Enochian Calendar had 52 even weeks of seven days each, with one day remaining. Traditional Jewish use of the seven-day week is upheld by 52 even weeks. Seven Sabbatic years may have been included to follow the Jubilee pattern. Seven days and the composite seven years maintain the Sabbath order. The last day of the solar calendar year was set apart and added up over several years. The Enochian Sect was the group of followers that recognized this idea of cascaded time measurement. Putting this whole picture together, the ancients were using numerical matching of days versus years to measure the same thing, time. The Enochian Calendar closely resembles the ancient Egyptian Calendar.

Thats another example of the "Western Semitic Calendar", the examples I originally had in mind are the Phaistos Disk and

excavated from the palace of Ashurbanipal. The 13 crenalations around the disk have four holes to peg weeks in a month. The inner circle has 52 holes to peg weeks in a year. A year is aproximated to a solar cycle as a year and a day and a month is aproximated to a lunar cycle as a month and a day. Its the same calendar in use in Britain in the middle ages and incorporated in British law. Rktect (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those sources so much as mention "Western Semitic Calendar". This is original research. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianity talk archives (header added for clarity)

Is the archives problem still around? Str1977 ^(talk) 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it seems to have worked itself out. I guess there was just lag in getting it displayed or something. Thanks for getting back to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional EL -Testimonium Flavianum

Carl,

I am recommending the following discussion as an additional EL under "Josephus on Jesus":

[3]

This is Appendix I for the manuscript we have previously discussed. (The article on I Clement was Appendix III).

These Appendices tend to be short, stand alone arguments; and thus better suited for posts on the website. The main arguments of the book are more involved and require a great many copyright permissions.

I would appreciate any thoughts or comments that you might have on the applicability of this article as an EL on Wikipedia.

Thanks,

John Mortalresurrection (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I trust your work, and you're not spamming like crazy so it's clear you're not editing only to promote your website. I've indicated assent on the article's talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Carl,

I appreciate your confidence, but I think my work falls outside of Wikipedia standards for ::inclusion as an EL. As you know, I started here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#Additional_External_Link

Then I tried to talk with Doug here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Testimonium_Flavianum_-_Additional_EL

and eventually ended up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vassyana#Proposed_EL_for_.22Josephus_on_Jesus.22

I think I should accept this last as authoritative and acquiesce, don't you?

I will still try to make non-controversial additions when I am able, but publication of the ::manuscript will take priority. The 4 -5 years of research does no one any good unless it's ::published!

Thank you again for your support. If you should wish to correspond regarding the historical ::aspects of Christ and His resurrection; or matters concerning the Ante-Nicene Fathers and their ::literature, just send a comment on my website and I will exchange e-mails.

Mortalresurrection (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And yeah, it looks like consensus went against you this time. Best of luck getting your work published, and I'll look at your site a bit more. Regards, carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I'm not going to block you (this time). Advice: only use vandalism for clear vandalism. It doesn't look like it in this case. Use WP:1RR. Encourage other users to take an interest - this must be a watched article by many. WP:DR is your next stop William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, William. How do I get others to take an interest? I did post something on the Christianity Wikiproject page earlier today. However, I did this on another dispute with him earlier, about the same page, and only one person responded--so that didn't really do a lot of good. I don't want to invite other editors personally, because that would look like I was just stuffing the ballot. Should I do that anyway? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

One way is not having an active revert war. People are more likely to take an interest in improving an article if it isn't being warred over. Best is to pick some (1-3) strongly related articles and lead a neutral message - perhaps including diffs showing your version and DS's version - and asking for comments on their talk. Or, pick a few editors who edit related articles. It could be interpreted as canvassing, but in this case more opinions are clearly needed, and if anyone complains at you, point out that I told you to William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can do that. Thank you for your help. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

MMOG

Carl, Can you please elaborate why exactly my blog at tweehouse.com/blog is not relevant to MMOG/Virtual world articles? The post, after 'Hello World' is about related technologies (a series of posts, of which this is the first). The next link under 'External links' is Blizzards press release concerning corporate matters.

I'll check back in few hrs, after which I'll intend to re-add the link.

Yours faithfully, paavope —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paavope (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The external links policy discourages linking to blogs, of which the external links guideline I left on your page informs you. Please see #11 on links normally to be avoided at WP:EL. Moreover, since it is your own blog, there is a problem of self-promotion/conflict of interest. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nativity

No prob. The NOR talk page hasa link to a page just for NOR conflicts where you can request other editors to comment, you should try that. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've commented on the article talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late getting back to you; I see that there have been some comments in the meanwhile. I'm pretty much in agreement with you that the table is OR, and Slrubenstein's suggestion to check out WP:ORN is a good one and seems to have brought up some discussion. I don't know if there's anything I can add to it at this point! ... discospinster _talk 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me in any case. I was hoping to make sure I wasn't off my rocker in thinking the table is problematic, and to show Spin the same. Thanks again :) carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Today's Christianity Talk Cleanup

Ref [4] be assured that we back you up in protecting WP from attacks against human respect and dignity.Inawe _talk 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Inawe. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome!Inawe _talk 20:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment

I'm not really interested in your further attempts at harrassment. You have made it clear that you will not discourse on the contention between us. Citing your interpretations of rules and nothing more is not constructive. I find it difficult for you to wonder why I haven't been particularly friendly to your continual removal of the comparison table. -- spin^control 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be hard pressed to take an interest in what you find interesting or disinteresting. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on Spin's attempts to corrupt the article. I never had the time, but it was clear as soon as he added that table that it was merely a piece of propaganda. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Roger. I appreciate it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re your comment on the article talk page, could you provide me with the URL which will show his forum post? I think it would be an aide in all this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the opening post here. Incidentally you need to post comments on my talk page for me to see them! :-) Roger Pearse (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent correction in Augustine of Hippo by 122.54.149.51 - Statements on Jews

Hi Carl, I have a question in regard to the contribution of 122.54.149.51 this morning in: Augustine of Hippo [1]. I would like to talk with the contributor about this very delicate question how Augustine viewed and positioned the Jewish people. As you know, this is actually one of the most controversial issues within Augustine's opus and cannot just be changed with one word. Unfortunately the contributor doesn't have the courage and/or purposefully doesn't want to open his/her talk page but prefers to change content "unseen" and without the possibility of discourse. If I understand the text citation correctly (City of God, book 18, chapter 46) Augustine did not intend to say that the Jewish people is God's - "his" people, that way logically pointing to the church as not being his people. In so far I would very much give the advice to go back to the revision as of 19:54, 12 February 2009, saying: "God had chosen the Jews as a special people". I believe that this would more accurately present Augustine's view. What can we do? I have sent the above also to Pietru il-Boqli. --Inawe _talk 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the broken link. I had that one in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustine_of_Hippo&diff=prev&oldid=271085874

--Inawe _talk 15:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted back to the "special people" wording. Reverting without discussion is fine in a situation with this because 1) the sentence is cited, so there really isn't reason to change it unless it doesn't reflect the sources 2)the edit was made by an anon with only two edits 3) he didn't leave an edit summary 4) he didn't discuss the change on the talk page 5) he wasn't careful about the wording, so he left it as "as a his people". Taken all together, those five reasons are plenty enough to revert undiscussed. Number 2 isn't really a sufficient reason on its own, but 1 and 5 in particular are sufficient reason for undiscussed reversion.

You're welcome to leave a message on a user's talk page before he has "opened" it. Established users are often starting new user talk pages for users who haven't had anything posted on them before. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense and is very helpful. Thank you! --Inawe _talk 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

I happen to think it's my prerogative to manage my own talk page how I wish and that such comments give entirely the wrong impression to people casually looking at my page. I don't really have enough talk on my page to warrant an archiving (which I did consider). For what its worth you might want to check the following guidelines:

"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users"

Furthermore, the guy who went round reversing my edits, presuming they were vandalous, without checking easily verifiable facts and then continuing to revert after being asked for an explanation, all because of one slightly silly but factually correct and, I still maintain, interesting edit, removed the discussion from his talk page without apology despite ignoring all Wikipedia civility guidelines. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware it's within your rights to remove things from your talk page. I restored the warnings once so as to suggest that you have the prudence to maintain everything on your talk page, regardless of whether you like it or not. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)