User talk:Carl.bunderson/Archive 8

Make up your mind
Either the tables are original research or they are not. If they are original research, please do not touch them again, as that would be an infringement of my copyright. It makes no difference whether they are under discussion or not. You believe that they are original research, so you have forfeited any rights to doing anything with them. If they are not original research, I will happily reinstate the tables. --  spin control 01:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You posted it on WP...you do not have a copyright for anything you post on here. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful. You are on thin ice. --  spin control 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The copyright only applies to published material. You have made sure that it isn't published. Leave it alone. --  spin control 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the same GFDL release is posted when you edit talk pages, just the same as the mainspace. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't talk to me about vandalism. That would be too hypocritical. --  spin control 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Trust me you are not the only one who thinks this myth believing fool is a self righteous prick. I will let him win eventually, but the real laugh is this guy believes in Casper the ghost and that makes him better than everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.207.203 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mango and jackfruit
Those etymologies are actually sourced elsewhere in the articles. Question is, whether they're worth including in the intro. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well at least on the mango, it's really not what the source says. The addition indicated that it was from Malayalam, to the exclusion of the other languages mentioned by the OED. On that basis, I was suspect of the jackfruit addition. Anyway, I don't think etymology should be included in leads, barring extraordinary circumstances. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Women's Erotica
Just wondering what inspired the removal of Filament Magazine from the Women's Erotica page.Shapeofdolls (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it as non-notable, without having its own WP page. We cannot list every women's erotica periodical that has its own myspace; that would be unweildy. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to meet the notoriety guidelines in my view given it has a non-myspace website and ref on Warren Ellis's blog (google for both if you wish), but I'm new to this game so perhaps not. According to the list on Women's Erotica page there are only two women's erotica periodicals still in print worldwide: Jungsheft (aka 'Gluck') and Scarlet (UK).Shapeofdolls (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit of Julian discussion
Thanks for the tip on the Julian discussion, Carl -- I completely bonked that one and edited the wrong section. When I have a minute I'll put it in the right place. Justin Z (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, Justin. :) carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Antichrist and the USA
I'm finding it increasingly rare for there to be a truly objective discussion on the Antichrist - tell me - let's take a look at these two paragraphs:

Some Futurists hold that sometime prior to the expected return of Jesus, there will be a period of "great tribulation"[72] during which the Antichrist, indwelt and controlled by Satan, will attempt to win supporters with false peace, supernatural signs. He will silence all that defy him by refusing to "receive his mark" on their right hands or forehead. This "mark" will be required to legally partake in the end-time economic system.[73] Some Futurists believe that the Antichrist will be assassinated half way through the Tribulation, being revived and indwelt by Satan. The Antichrist will continue on for three and a half years following this "deadly wound".[74]

and this paragraph:

Some Premillenial Futurism (Christian eschatology)-interpreters increasingly view the leadership of the West (viz., the USA and its President) as the seat of Antichrist who will morph into the Beast at the Abomination of Desolation. (See: Whore of Babylon) whose religious, commercial and political enterprise are seen under judgment in and whose leader, the Antichrist-Beast (See: the Beast (Bible)), heads up this latter-day commercial and military empire in the End Times.

I appreciate your academic credentials - we have some as well - but objectivity, by removing this paragraph from the debate, has lessened the content considerably--when such content is as significant as this--perhaps the individual who has removed this can explain?

The statement made by the individual who removed the second paragraph was this: rv unsourced

Mr. Bunderson - how can this second paragraph be considered "unsourced" - perhaps I'm not understanding the interpretation of "unsourced" as in do you want me to list in quantity the number of such people in "some?" Then why not produce scores of "Some Futurists" in the first paragraph.

Hello, my name is Carl Rocco Bunderson. I am pursuing an MA in evangelization and catechesis at the Augustine Institute in Denver, CO. I have my BA in economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church on 7 April 2007. You may contact me at my user talk page.

Doug Krieger (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwmDoug Krieger (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You need sources for what you submit to WP. An entire paragraph without a single source is not what WP needs. Source the statements you write. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He previously sourced the statements you are reverting--to his own writings. I reverted him twice previously, once for advertising his website and once for original research.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, his edits are really rather troubling, IMO. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 09:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, your juvenile response to my so-called troubling edits belies a troubling inability on the part of this segment of WP to maintain its objectivity and quality control - please to do resort to such superficial and inane criticisms. 69.229.122.167 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwm69.229.122.167 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't even sign your name properly, you may be well-qualified in some ways, but you clearly have no idea how to work on WP. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let it be known that I fully support your reverts on the Antichrist page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Further harrassment
Sorry I just don't understand why you need to do this. So. --  spin control 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Harassment? It's hardly as though I've reverted all your edits; the constructive ones I maintain. There is no necessity in including it in the references. There's no sense in spamming up the bottoms of pages. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, harrassment. You didn't seem to even consider the removal of a bibliographic note from where bibliography necessarily should be. I didn't complain about your placing the full bibliographic note in the footnote, which is not usual scholarly procedure. Why can't you leave the information in its proper place? --  spin control 04:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not harassment. I'm tempted to consider it the other way-round. But anyway, it is quite normal to include full bibliographic info in a footnote on WP. There is absolutely no necessity in repeating the information in a biblography if this is done. I could understand if you were bitching that i reverted your edits wholesale. But this is petty--all I've done is modify the style of your edit. You seem to have ownership issues with your edits, having difficulty remembering that you ought not submit them unless u want them edited mercilessly. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That the information is in the footnote is not the issue. I don't understand the -- to use the word you have -- petty need to hide the information. It is senseless. --  spin control 05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting it in a footnote is not "hiding" the information. Removing the reference would be hiding it. This is avoiding needless repetition of the same bibliographic info on a single page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions)
 * Please look at modern scholarly bibliographic information in reputable journals. You'll see that the works are cited with full bibliographical information outside the footnotes. This is for the conveneience of readers, so they don't have to find where the information is hiding. --  spin control 05:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, WP was not a reputable journal. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for journals doing so, is because it provides easiest access to information. What is your problem about doing things right? --  spin control 07:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was "right", it would be mandated in the MoS that we repeat information in both footnotes and in reference sections. As it is, "reference" sections encourage users who don't know what they're doing to include general references, without adding footnotes to the article--rendering their quote references useless. Having references only in footnotes encourages users to make precise references. Moreover, it can be a pain to wade through footnotes/endnotes in a book or journal article. Having a reference section makes sense in that case. Going between body text and footnotes is far, far easier in a WP article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you are unaware of scholarly procedure, the usual practice is to have the full bibliographical note where everyone can find it and refer to that note in the footnotes. This is standard scholarly procedure. It makes it easy for anyone reading the article to find the bibliography. --  spin control 07:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 12:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion on $pread
As the topic is facing deletion for lack third party references, your reversion of my addition of half a dozen such references here, along with the snappy comment "rv, these are not referenced, and ergo not references" is less than helpful. Judging from this talk page, this may not be your first such foray into such territory. Best of luck T L Miles (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would make rather more sense for you to actually add content based on the references, rather than merely adding URLs to the bottom of the page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Genesis
Carl, these changes are not spam -- I just wanted to allow people to see the most popular versions of the Book of Genesis. Just1Word is not a commercial site like most of the other bible sites that are trying to sell something. Just1Word is 100% donor supported, and it has no teachiing or denominational bias. There are no ads to sell anything on Just1Word like most of the other Bible sites. Just1Word is not affiliated with any publisher or has any agenda to promote one version of the Bible over another. Users without a Bible preference are shown scripture in a random version until one is selected by them.

I am new to Wikipedia so any advice on how to get started or contribute to the community would be greatly appreciated. I very much want to collaborate with the other active users here to make this a useful tool to people everywhere.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpmiller (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's erratic and a social networking site. Why use it to replace a working site? Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Thank you, Doug. We already have plenty of translations available. Your edit on David was particularly worrying. Replacing a link that is just fine, with one to the only site to which you have linked, which is the only sort of edit you've made, exhausts my assumption of good faith. My suggestion is that you add reliably sourced-information to WP, rather than externel links. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Carl
I always thought that different people's comments should be indented separately. In a thread, each new person's comment should be indented one more. If one person comments again in the same thread, they can indent the same as their first comment.

In this case I just don't think that my comments and your should be indented the same. If you think I screwed up with how much I indented my comment, feel free to change it. I just figured that since you indented after me, it should be indented one more. if you feel your comment builds on an earlier comment of yours, it should e indented less - but lss than my comment of yesterday.

Anyway, my comment and yours shouldn't be indented the same. If you want to change the indent on mine, feel free, no complaint from me! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * eh, I'll just leave it how it is. I guess I've just been reading the indent system differently from how you do. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When many people comment and go back and forth on an issue, things get tricky (for example, should I have kept this commnt flush with my first one)? I know it gets confusing - I just want you to know that my only intention was to make it easier for people to distingish your comment from mine, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know you had good intention, no worries. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please allow listing of our open source hardware project
Carl - We, a research group in the Depts of Biomedical Engineering and Population Health Sciences at the University of Wisconsin, keep trying to add a simple link and single sentence description about our open source hardware project (spirometer) to the appropriate page, and you keep removing it citing it as spam. Can you please clarify why you continue to object to our providing a link to the project? Thanks - Dvansickle (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Dvansickle


 * Do not add the link again. It is in violation of a number of Wikipedia's policies. 1) You clearly have a COI issue here. 2) External links are not to be included in the body of an article. 3) Without a blue-link for your project, there is no clear demonstration of its notability. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The description and link were included an a section entitled "Other projects"; surrounding sections contain external links to example projects. Not sure why you feel compelled to target our addition. Finally, not clear how someone can have a conflict of interest in an open source project. Dvansickle (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Dvansickle


 * You've described it as "Relisting academic (Univ Wisconsin) open hardware project; you opened earlier with "We, a research group in the Depts of Biomedical Engineering and Population Health Sciences at the University of Wisconsin". How can that not be a COI? Furthermore, the other ELs should not be there either. Back in February I cleaned out the page of inappropriate links, but things (ie the ELs in the surrounding sections) have crept in. I am not "targeting" your additions. I'll get rid of the rest of the cruft in a moment. You are trying to promote your project on WP, which is disallowed. Please stop. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries
Please only call edits vandalism that meet the criteria at WP:Vandalism. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The_Beast_(Bible)
Would you please explain your reason for undoing this post? I have reverted it. Discussion is always welcome. If you have specific objections, please state them. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your post had no discernable relation to improving the article. It appeared to be merely a discussion of the article's topic, which is prohibited. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By that standard you must remove most of the Talk on that page.


 * That is the standard WP uses. I'll browse through the page and remove what else needs be removed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the Sections Stub category and A few issues with NPOV you must remove everything on that talk page if you are going to be consistent or allow discussion of my post. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The other threads are admissable as well, even if they are not gems. "POV" starts with "I believe this article should be flagged as biased", and "Vicarius Filii Dei" includes "Perhaps the section about the SDA Church should reflect this"; these render the comments related to improving the article, and not forum/soapboxing comments. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not revert again to my original post since you have shown some consistency.I will attempt to rework it to conform to your very strict interpretation of the guide lines. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ray. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity how did you know so quickly a new post was in the discussion of the beast? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's on my watchlist. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Carl, having just learned something about you by this incident, I see you are an experienced man of letters and some depth. In retrospect, while I am disappointed you removed my post in the strict application of the Talk page guide lines, this is tempered by the fact you revisited the page and applied the same standard WP to other posts.

The guide line you referred to also says this: You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages. In this Spirit, I would like to know your thoughts on this. I have come to this POV by actually believing Isaiah when he wrote, Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.

I think the beast is the government of men. President Obama´s limousine ¨the beast¨ is an explicit symbol for this reality. People make this more mystical than it is to avoid facing the reality and hard choices.

[16] And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

[17] And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

What is the image of the beast? Money. It takes money in any buy/sell transaction. Money is the foremost thought in the forehead of people for the most part. ¨It is able to give life to this image so that it could speak.¨ Ever heard the expression, Money Talks? You cannot serve God and mammon at the same time. Either you will love one and hate the other or you will serve one and neglect the other.

Furthermore, in Revelation 18 it says;

[11] And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more. This describes the current global economic meltdown or economic tsunami. Governments are trying every way to stimulate people into buying merchandise. This is a futile attempt because this is a Spiritual problem not recognized or addressed as such yet.

From my POV the world has arrived at the end of the 3600 Imperial Babylonian system of value for people and things as foretold in Scripture. For the first time since Daniel V, the whole world can see the Writing_on_the_wall.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reserve judgement on any attributions of the beast to anything. While I suppose your reading is possible, I don't hold it myself. I do think far too many Christians spend way too much time looking for signs of the end times. I doubt it will be clear until the Parousia has taken place. Rather than worrying about "are we in the end times", it would be far better to live each day as though Christ's second coming were right around the corner, without expecting it to be. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ¨The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.¨ Absolutely. Let us all live Today, the only time that is, as the hands and the feet and the mouth of Christ. Let our hearts beat as one with his. We who believe are the Host body. All who believe are his Emissaries.

I hope other visitors to your page will offer their thoughts on this discussion, but I find too many Wikipedians are neither hot or cold but lukewarm fence sitters.

[14] And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; [15] I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. [16] So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue you out of my mouth. Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cormier
What seems to be the problem? (I'd like to understand what's going on before saying anything.) Is this something new? The Jade Knight (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well look at the post he had put on Talk:The Beast (Bible). There is discussion on the thread just above here, and on his talk page.
 * It appears he's backed down now, but I'm still not sure he is understanding our forum and soapbox policies. Even if he does rework it, it needs to be something that genuinely could help the article (ie, including references to RS), and not soapboxing dressed up as something else. And thanks for replying so quickly. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion eclipse
Carl, if you have a moment and you would not mind, perhaps you could offer a third opinion in a dispute on this page. As I see it, it's about 2 things - (a) whether a reference to one particular article suggesting the crucifixion took place on 3 April 33 represents undue weight in favour of that view; and (b) whether a citation on the issue from a book on the Gospel of Matthew is sufficient because it is only a book about Matthew and only mentions it 'in passing'. (Although from the context it appears to me to cover the issue as a whole and in reasonable detail). Any contribution from you would be very helpful if you could manage it. Thanks. --Rbreen (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for thinking my opinion's worth seeking out. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Defence mechanisms - rv spam
I just wonder what inspired you to delete (as "rv spam" whatever it is) a reference and a link I added to "Defence mechanism". Actually this is my article that I am making link to but - as an MA and PhD student in psychology - I (but not only me) considered this thesis as a very good and comprehensive one (in many aspects better than another refered to). Could you please explain what preparation (I mean education) do you have to access its scientific quality? (It is not a reference to anything commercial).

I have undone your changes. In case you really wanted to delete my reference and link again, please do explain why do you think these references are - in terms of subject matter, ie psychology - invalid. I do understand that you are a "defender of a wiki" but I am not sure if what they expect you defend wiki from is good scientific articles.


 * I removed it because you added the single link in two different locations. The paper itself is not bad, by any means. But adding a single link in two different places smacks of COI/self-promotion issues. I've maintained the link in the EL section, but removed the duplicate in the references section. You'll understand it isn't appropriate to add something to the reference list unless it is actually referenced in the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I do understand it. Sorry for an ungentle tone of my previous note. Regards.


 * No problem. I understand that the way I use 'spam' on WP is rather different from its more general use, and could have come off mean. cheers carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

For Anselm...
You'll probably want to look at:



That's just a start. There is plenty more out there, I've not even really touched the theological or philosophical works. Hope this helps! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Victoria. I read Anselm: Saint and Statesman today, as well as a piece by Southern to which that was a response. Very interesting. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank YOU for at least working on Anselm. I've never liked him from my college days so having someone else work on him is a relief! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, well I'm not sure I'm motivated enough to work from the whole books, that might be awhile before I get around to doing it, but it is certainly easy enough to get what I can from google books and articles I can get to online. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:189.156.177.26, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of reference as spam on Bhagavad Gita page
Why did you remove my reference as "spam"? I can't see the difference between my link and some other links already on the page, to other websites in which a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is laid out? DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of references as spam on Dhammapada page
I don't understand why you removed these. The 2007 translation by Easwaran is missing from the list of translations - which seems a major omission, since according to various sources (incl. Amazon) it is currently one of the best-selling translations in the US. To cite it is hardly spam, or advertizing, it is simply information. And since there is an earlier translation from Easwaran that is also cited, I thought it would be useful to clarify that the later issue is different from the earlier one, and in what way. How would you suggest I get this hopefully useful information on to wikipedia? With thanks in advance for your help DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits were merely adding links to a single website onto multiple pages. That is spamming. You need to add information to the articles, sourcing it with reliable sources. The kind of linking you have engaged in is indicative of spamming WP. You were trying to promote the website, and it may be a COI. There may well be other links which should not be there, but I only examined the diffs. The first edit which caught my attention was on Augustine of Hippo. The link you added essentially only mentioned Augustine. Then, seeing that you added links to the same website on other pages, I reverted your edits on all the pages. You may not promote your own pet interests on WP by promoting a particular author, his works, and his website. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that, if I don't put in links to a website but simply add the references to the books with their ISBN, will you then allow those to pass without removing them? In which case I would go ahead and do just that. As explained above, I can't see that it's correct for wikipedia to omit some major translations from the list of translations referred to. If I've still misunderstood your objection then please bear with me and explain further. Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Referencing the books, (ie, adding material and citing it from the book) would be fine. Adding the books, with or w/o the ISBN, without citing it, would not be ok. WP does not exist to promote translations you happen to like. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(Double) (parentheses)
About your recent edit in Bernardino of Siena, I think parentheses are something which one adds as an interval between parts of a phrases; so adding two parentheses in a row is very ugly. What the second ones they between? I think the semicolon I use now in Bernardino of Siena is a good compromise. Ciao and good work. (PS: this should be an international encyclopedia; so if you write Boulder, CO only American readers would understand what "CO" is) --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the semicolon is better. I just saw the comma, and that wasn't working, and the double parentheses were what I thought of first. Thanks for the note. I'll fix the CO, I hadn't considered the international readers. Cheers. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

MULLAH OMAR - THE DAJJAL (another word for AntiChrist)
As per all warning signs of Prophet Muhammad, Mullah Omar fits the best description. He is one-eyed, emerged from the east of Arabian Peninsula, sheds innocent blood, and executes those who will not take his side. 88 Imam Masjid's were executed by his followers in Buner District during recent takeover by Dajjali forces.

Please explain why the above passage was deleted by you ?

--ChJameel (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are for discussing improving the article, and neither soapboxing nor discussing the topic as in a forum. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tamarindo Edit
Please tell me why you took down a link to totally-tamarindo.com which has existed on the page for quite some time. I am anything but surprised it is some religious wingnut deciding once again for everyone what is right and wrong. The link had no commercial benefit to me and is being developed for the sole purpose of providing a fair and non commercial information website on my opinions and advice for travel to Tamarindo.

IT IS HELPFUL YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!! I did this to HELP!!!!!!

So basically I linked to DEALS filtered from Kayak (wow advice on going to Tamarindo really seems to conflict with POSSIBLY, just POSSIBLY people wanting to know about deals and save some money in rough economic times.

But no, yuo self righteous jerk, have to suddenly after months decide this site offends your Jesus loving tastes. Your cross offends mine so why not take it down. Let me start editing wiki for references to Jesus since there is no factual proof he even existed you prick!

I hate people like you. I try to help people and do something nice and you have to be an asshole. I will put it up every day because it has been up every day until you as judge and jury took it down. You think your stupid edits make you special but it shows you are just an uptight small dicked asshole!

Now if nonsense inserted into pages is against wiki policy why don;t you focus on removing silly references to mathematical and scientific impossibilities such as a man walking on water, turning water into wine, or the absolute absurdity of someone dying and being resurrected. These are all imossible and are pure childish nonsense and stories told for years prior to lil Jesus. (see Horus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.207.203 (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

more advice
Please report vandalism for any articles where someone inserts nonsense into a page such as anything that implies anyone in the history of the world ever walking on water, turning water to wine, or the absolute most ridiculous comment of someone dying and ever beng resurected since that is impossible and has never been seen.

See how one persons beliefs are a violation to others. Now be open minded a bit and leave my hard work and HELP for others (unlike the church who only takes from the poor) alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.207.203 (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

last edit...
no links on the new post. lots of info. Now stick to your mythology and leave me alone!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.207.203 (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What will be the usefullness of Clergy after Second coming of Jesus Christ ?
What will be the usefullness of Clergy after Second coming of Jesus Christ ? I dont think it would serve any purpose. I am asking you this question because i read your user page.

--ChJameel (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but I don't imagine there will be a need for clergy after he comes again. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?
Carl, I've corrected the article on Jehovah's Witnesses because they are BY DEFINITION and BY ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY a "cult". Pure, simple, no discussion needed. Simply read the definition of a "cult".

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a Christian Religion? The answer to the question is, "No. It is not Christian." Like all non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings.

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:

Taking verses out of their immediate context. Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context. Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text. Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs. Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others. Changing the meanings of words. Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines. Adding to the Word of God. Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness organization requires of its members regular weekly attendance at their "Bible Study" meetings where they are repeatedly indoctrinated with anti-Christian teachings. This is done by reading the Watchtower magazine, following along with what it says, reading the questions it asks, and reciting the answers it gives. In other words, the Watchtower Organization carefully trains its members to let the Organization do their thinking for them. For confirmation of this, please read Does the Watchtower organization control the JW's thinking?

Rickysolar (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Learn to bottom-post. 2) We have RS saying they are Christian. Extensive, pain-staking discussion on the talk page has determined, by consensus, that they are Christian. They purport to follow the teachings of Christ. That makes them Christian. Personally, I think all Churches and ecclesial communities that are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church distort the essential doctrines of Christianity. But that doesn't mean that I won't uphold their being called Christian in WP articles. Your personal opinion, nor that of anyone, does not matter here. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also you seem to be confusing the definition sociological of Cult with that of Sect. Sociologically speaking JW is a a sect but not a cult.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What?
I made no edits.


 * 14 minutes ago, at 16:38 (Mountain Time) your IP made a vandalous edit to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you didn't make that edit, please treat this as an impetus to get an account, as to avoid irrelevant warnings in the future. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut & paste move
Hi, I had to revert your cut & paste move on the article Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to Josemaría Escrivá. Cut & paste moves are not approved, please read WP:MOVE to learn how to move an article properly. Thank you. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read your comment on my talk page only after I wrote this. I agree that Josemaría Escrivá is the better title. You might have easily moved back to article to that title. Now that Josemaría Escrivá has a version history, it needs to be deleted first by an admin. All would have been much easier if you would have moved the article the proper way. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried moving it the proper way, and it said this: "You have not specified a target page or user on which to perform this function", and wouldn't let me. How can we get it moved, since the "Move this page" route didn't work? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind my reply, it seems you're taking care of it. And btw, your English is very good. You'd be justified in saying you have more than an 'intermediate' use of English on your user page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If direct moving is impossible, the target page needs to be deleted by an admin first. There is no other way, because the version history is lost to the article after a cut & paste move, which means an infringement of the GFDL. I now have requested moving the article. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

JW beliefs
I have raised a topic of discussion in the talk page of JWs. Your comments would be appreciated.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

link
Why do you think the added link is inappropriate? Please check, you'll find a lot of information(news, features, interview, pictures, video...)on Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taikah (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ICRC.org is already referenced in the articles. Since WP is not a collection of links, and linkfarms are discouraged, if something is referenced, it should not be included in the EL section as well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)