User talk:Bakulan



Hello, Bakulan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who put a certain post on a talk page. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * If you would like your own user menu, click here.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * New contributors' help page | Help
 * Where to ask questions | Frequently asked questions
 * Introduction to Wikipedia | Guide to Wikipedia
 * The simplified ruleset for Wikipedia | Manual of Style
 * Things to work on at Wikipedia
 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Questions, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 17:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Wunder von Lengede. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 17:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind Bakulan (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR
You are aware that you have now breached the 3RR rule?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mis-representing sources
Do your sources talk about Roman festivals, I bleive they only mention the Celtic luik. If so perhaps you need to re-word your passages.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your coffe table books talk about Romam Festivals, Celtic events and different other things. My sources dismiss any construction of a purported continutiy of celtic or pagan traditions from ancient times till nowadays halloween. Bakulan (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You sources only talk about Celtic origons do they not, Do they make any mention of any other Pagan religions,. If they do can I have the quotes please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See page end of page 28 at Hörandner about purported Halloween paganism in the USA, see pages 29 and 30 about journalist and others braghing about Halloweens purported celtic roots without any reflction or scientific base. Hörnander stantes a generic neeed to give a nowadaays phenomena a base in an ancient past, from Walpurginsnacht till Halloween. A celtic past is less problematic than the previously overused Germanic one since there are no problems with Nazis. Page 35 gives an summary in english. Bakulan (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * None of thosde mention the festival of Pamona.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They dismiss all sorts of alleged continuity, be it pagan, celtic or occult nazi Germanic as plain bullshit. This applies beyound halloween and includes of cause pamodingsda. Bakulan (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have failed to find any referance to Pamoona in either sources. I would ask you to provide a quote please. A source has to explicitly supports text, not implicitly. If tehy do not mention Pamona then we cannot claim they do.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Any pagan is dismissed, so Nicholas Rogers is dismissed on all fronts. EODBakulan (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So provide the quote then, also Rogers has not been dismised on all fronts (and I have poiunted out otehr scholers who agree wioht him) just by you, also your last edit has pushed you over 3RR. It is common practice that during an edit war pages are reset to the text before the edit war began.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm there is no third revert to one and the same status. As well if youre not able to understand a generic dismissal of all continuities, including the one about pamona, you should abstain from reverting such continuities. Bakulan (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that you cannot say a soures says something when it does not?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sweet or sour? No I am not aware. I am constantly lying and misrepresenting bad bad teutonic sources just to spoil originally celtic Halloween for you and I am receiving significant paiments by scotish irish founds to do so. Bakulan (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A specific accusation has been made that some of your soruces do not say what you say theat say. you may if you wish treat this as joke but it will then make it very hard to assume that this is not diliberate. So I will ask you do all the sources you provide specificaly say tht ther mis no pagan root to halloween? Do they also explain why the Scots and Irish call all Hallows eve Halloweeen (if they do can you provide the quotes please??Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that All Hallows Eve was shortcut halloween and halloween as a word is not much older than 17th century is a nice proof of the christian roots. Döring and Moser clearly dismiss any continuity and call (ancient) pagan roots plain bullshit. Hörander just calls continuity claims (to the ancient celts or roman era pagans) generally as being outdated and oldfashioned research. Some sources do claim (18th or 19th) neopagan roots for some aspects, but these are to be found in the celtic revival but not in the celtic era itself. 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me
"German language sources published a few years ago " is what I said not ""Some german sources + some years ago", " pleae quote me accuratly or not at all.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thread
Hi, just a note to ask if you get time would you give your view on the green suggestion in this section? Thanks, bye. Whitehorse1 00:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)