User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 4

history of money. Why you removed the whole section?
In the past, I knew that you were against the translation of the bible regarding the word "psefisato". Thats was understandable, as long as the alternative translation is still beeing censored. But know you seem more mad. Why you turned against the whole etymology section, which stands there for 3 years?


 * Because it's unsourced--the only two sources in the whole piece are a blog, and a tv episode, I think. These are not reliable sources. Just because it has been there for a long time, does not mean it is necessarily good. The editor who removed it in the first place had a good reason for doing so: it has next to nothing to do with etymology. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Information/Proposal/Quote/Tender removal. Specific feedback for removal please
Thanks for your feedback Carl. That you believe in wikipedia and that you're giving of your time to wikipedia is appreciated. I also believe in wikipedia, and am also giving of my time freely to wikipedia. Looks like you're trying to manage your time by sending out standard copy-paste responses. I understand why you do this. I know that wikipedia uses no follow tags, and am NOT interested in the link value. The pages I included in the RFI & RFQ & RFP & RFT pages I consider to be highly pertinent, relevant and useful to the visitor. I make no money from publising the article provided. I publish articles for passion, not profit. Quoting from the external links page - which you kindly provided, and with which I'm already familiar) "Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" So please enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negotiations (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi.I took them down because you have been adding links to nothing but your own website, which is a violation of the conflict-of-interest policy; see WP:COI for more on this; perhaps the most relevant line, prefaced by ways to avoid COI problems, is: "Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles..." I took them down without looking at them yet; they may well be of value, but the fact that most of your contributions, and all those I reverted, were all just additions of links to your own website, and not adding information to the articles, raised red flags in my mind. Carl.bunderson (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your speedy, honest and specific response Carl.
 * I see your point, and if I were in your shoes, with so many areas of interest, and limited time to make an editing contribution, I'd likely have done the same thing.
 * Please reconsider: Here's a line from the page you've been referring me to WP:COI: "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution".
 * I'm a negotiation expert. I live, eat, breathe all things related to negotiation - 90+ hours per week, every week. So when I placed these relevant links into the pages, I did so from a position of authority (Yes, I'm sad for being a negotiation geek, I admit it). If you can find a better explanation to and description of these phrases in use in business, then I will humbly eat my hat and apologise. I don't believe that on this occasion I any exercising of greater caution could result in a better resourceful page.
 * I've researched this topic thoroughly (i.e. RFQ, RFI, RFP, RFT), and the reason we had this article written was following requests from visitors who were unable to find useful explanations - yes, this includes wikipedia. I personally researched the web to find sources for our readers, and came up with frustrated empty hands.


 * I'm going to take your advice and do more research of other relevant sites for inclusion.
 * For the record, I HAVE made edits to negotiation pages, and commentary on the associated discussion pages, and added links to sites that I have no affiliation to. We're all in this together trying to make wikipedia the best possible Carl, so I do applaud your contributions. I'm just feeling despondent that after my late night efforts, you've made a snap judgement without having visited the pages in question.
 * Consider this: If I were REALLY a spamster selfishly only promoting my own interest to get (empty no follow) link love, I'd not be so stupid as to register with the name I've chosen publically declaring the link between myself and the sites I work with, would I? I challenge you to find a more comprehensive and useful negotiation site that's free than negotiations.com. Almost all other negotiation sites promote their courses. Those that host some content are sorely lacking. I wish it were another way. --Negotiations (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, Calum. I have reconsidered. I checked out a couple of the pages you linked to, and they do look very useful. I wouldn't say it's necessary for you to find other sites for inclusion. One of the reasons I jump on people that look like spammers so quickly is I hate it when pages become linkfarms. I think it's a lot better to add content than just ELs. Thank you for exercising the caution you did, and especially for not taking offence at my reversions. And as your your last argument, you would be surprised at how transparent people can be when they are going for self-promotion on here. But if you don't re-add them soon, I'll try and get to it in the next couple/few days. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this Carl, and for your decision.
 * I wish we could get more business negotiators involved in wikipedia. The negotiation related pages rely too heavily on academic negotiators right now. You're right that adding content would be more valuable, as pages like these are too bare right now. My fear, in this case, is that if I were to add content, I'd simply be copy-pasting from the article I referred to, as it was written to explain these exact 4 processes in business usage. Any advice you have to offer here would be greatfully received.
 * As you can no doubt tell, I'm still learning the ropes, giving time irregularly. So next time I'll save a copy of my contributions. So if you could re-add them, you would be saving me the time. Thanks for your pointers and advice. Please keep up the great work across the broad range of disciplines you're contributing towards. --Negotiations (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As for adding content, I would suggest either paraphrasing some of the pages to which you've linked, or including short quotes and using the ref template you'll find below where it says "Do not copy text....without a GFDL..." below the editing box. I'll be happy to go back and re-add your edits, but so you know, they are saved on WP already--you don't need to save them on your computer or anything. If you go to page history on a given page, and click on a past version of it, you can see the page as it was then. If you click 'edit this page', and then don't change anything, it will change the contents of the page back to that version. Thanks for all your appreciation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Carl for your invaluable advice. It's your help that encourages me to continue learning and putting more time into WP. Have just started inserting some text with reference quotes. I'm going through these pages and slowly 'undoing' to get my edits back online. Am reviewing at the same time.
 * Would you please look into a problem with the WP references to the Request For Tender page? Somehow this page is taking me straight to edit mode, instead of showing the RFT page. This is true for all pages that I've come across that link to the RFT page. I've no clue how to fix this.--Negotiations (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem; I'm glad my hasty reversion of your edits didn't sour you against WP. Sorry I didn't get around to reverting my edits; I have a paper due on Monday and I had been putting it off because of that.
 * As for the RfT page, see how the link is red, instead of blue like most other links? That means the page hasn't been made yet--it doesn't exist. So what happened probly, is that someone thought it would be a good page to have, but it was never made. So if you edit when it takes you to the edit mode for that page, that will newly create the page. That's really the only way to 'fix' it, unless you don't think the page should be made. In that case, I'd suggest removing the double brackets from around "Request For Tender" so that it won't show up as a (red) wikilink anymore. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem?
One option is to keep it in the footnotes, so what do you mean it is against your position? Just because it is against your position, and I'm not even sure how, that doesn't mean you can cross out polls. That is against Wiki rules. Please stop. Even administrators don't have the power to do this.


 * I've provided for a new poll on the page. You'll see that this one is more like the first poll, and is not worded in such a way as to push people into your position. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How is pushing people into my position? I included that it is in footnotes. I could easily accuse you of trying push people into your position by including Afghanistani in the poll and confusing people.


 * Please stop being a dictator. Behavior like that is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Please be reasonable and stop removing polls or I will have no choice but to report it to administrators.


 * Afghanistani is a separate issue and needs to be discussed and polled separately. A separate poll will be made for that later.


 * They are not separate issues. They have been dealt with together before, and you have shown no reason no to treat them together. My poll wording is much less pov than is yours. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What POV? How is this POV? It is yours that is POV, it is your POV that these are the same terms while I have already proven they are separate issues. Afghanistani and Afghani originally mean different things and are used differently, though both can be used as demonyms. Do some more research please before I have to explain it to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The way you have worded it, it pushes people into your view. My wording is more neutral. And you have in no way proven that Afghani and Afghanistani are separate issues. Because they can both be used as demonymns, they should be discussed together.

I have given you the reason why they need to be 2 polls twice but if you missed it here's again.

The person voting might want Afghani but not Afghanistasni, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani.


 * There is no reason to want that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just gave the reason in bold. I'm sure you understand it but are pretending not to for some reason.


 * That is not a reason; it is tautology. You have not given a reason that someone would want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or vice versa. I have provided reasons not to hold that position. This is why I call you blind. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One reason would be that Afghanistani does not have as many Google Search results as Afghani. You could have figured that out for yourself.

I have removed the reasoning right before the poll and made changes to the wording. So now you have nothing to complain about.


 * Sourced information needs to be included, however, and there are sources for Afghanistani. Therefore, your reason doesn't hold water. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered as a bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. S M S  Talk 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this issue is of much importance but please don't alter someone's comments(not poll). -- S M S  Talk 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've only meant to cross out the poll. If I altered his comments, it was inadvertent. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Help
Will someone look at the Afghanistan talk page? ThuranX has sided with an anon, which is very frustrating to me. I put in a lot of time here fighting vandals, and on that page socks especially, and I feel as though I've been shot in the foot. Can another admin explain to me why I am in the wrong about this? Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but it sounds to me like you might want to take it to Dispute Resolution. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Socks
You can report all of his IPs, he used in recent days here for blocking. -- S M S  Talk 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Does using different IPs count as sockpuppetry? I thought it had to actually be different accounts, since it is possible that the user just falls under differing IPs at different times, without intending to be a sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well! I think it can be counted as sockpuppetry(you can find examples here), and if you provide strong evidence(i.e. diffs) so the reviewing admin can judge by the pattern of edits that all IPs were used by same person from time to time. -- S M S  Talk 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for your help :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Help, again
Will someone explain to me whether ThuranX is an admin? He does not show up in the admin lists when I look alphabetically under the Ts, but he did answer as though he had authority on the admins' noticeboard. The anon with whom I am disputing has taken him to be an admin, but since I can't find him on the list I suspect that he is not. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind that, I'm really darn sure he is not an admin/sysop. Carl.bunderson (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

stop vandalyzing please
I have not inteferred with your edit war with that anon: I kept your poll but I did keep his reasoning too.

if kingturlte was convinced that I was a sock he would have rv'ed me himself since he has the page on watch.

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

see Iran's infobox
You can see the exact same thing in the infobox of that country (Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān), just look for yourself Iran. You see, you can take my word when it comes to Iranian studies. Tajik007 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. S M S  Talk 19:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Tajik007 has been blocked for 31h for vandalism/3rr on this matter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Afghanistan
Please try to settle your dispute at the talk page and avoid edit war. I think you both already may have violated 3RR. -- S M S  Talk 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can't you see that he is vandalizing the page? He's pulling the same Dari v. Persian shit that Tajik007 pulled--and Tajik007 is an indef blocked sock. Who do you think is in the right here? A user who said his edit was something completely different from what it in fact was, or me, who has been battling these freaking socks single-handedly on this page? I am not in 3rr violation because I am combatting vandalism...please freaking realize that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am looking for an admin online right now who can look at this, but you please avoid being part of the edit war. -- S M S  Talk 07:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to allow vandals to vandalize. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:CyrusTheGreat2 has now been blocked as yet another sockpuppet of User:Beh-nam, and I've unprotected the article. Cheers! henrik • talk  19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Henrik. Is there a possibility of making something like in-between semi-protection and full protection? Cause look at what happened--as soon as the full protection was lifted, he had another sock ready to vandalize. And maybe the other admin didn't put it under semi-protection, but it ought to be, but yeah, even that doesn't do a lot of good, because the threshold for that is a bit low. Just a suggestion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not, semi and full protection are the only options we have. But we caught and blocked another sock besides CyrusTheGreat2. The best thing to do if you think you've encountered socks of banned users is to report them to admins and get them blocked. If you suspect more socks of that same person, go here: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Beh-nam, otherwise post on WP:AN/I. henrik  • talk  19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the advice. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.blunderson
Hi, this user has a very similar username and an identical userpage to yours. Can you confirm whether you own both accounts, or if the second one is an impostor? Thanks! -- lucasbfr  talk 09:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not own that account; it is an imposter. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Can anything be done about it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From the user talk page it looks like you've already blocked him. Thank you, Lucas. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Someone has decided to revert Afghanistan page and remove all the good images as well as the South-Central Asia, can you please bring the article to the version that was agreed on Talk:Afghanistan. The intro section has a number of errors and misleading information, Afghanistan was not created as a buffer state in the late 19th century as stated. It became a buffer state when the British first got involved with helping Afghans defeat the Persians in the beginning of the 19th century. In 1838 the British decided to move inside and occupied the whole country. I think the article was in better position before Kingturtle's revert. If you can help fix the information that will be nice of you.


 * I would suggest you take it up with him... I respect Kingturtle's judgement. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What does nn mean?
Hi - I see you have used this as a reason for reverting some links. I do not find anything under wiki nn that makes any sense. Can you please explain? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

'nn' is non-notable. It's an abbreviation related to the notability policy. When a redlink is added to a list or calendar-type (ie date or year) article, many people will revert those additions as being non-notable, so it doesn't get cluttered with people promoting their personal organizations or interests. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)