Revision as of 20:46, 24 February 2013 editHumanpublic (talk | contribs)343 edits →edit warring and hounding: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:25, 24 February 2013 edit undoSeb az86556 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers40,390 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Humanpublic (talk) to last revision by Bhaskarbhagawati. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:I just noticed you don't even know what's going on: He brought it up at ANI... w/o notifying you... ] <sup>]</sup> 11:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | :I just noticed you don't even know what's going on: He brought it up at ANI... w/o notifying you... ] <sup>]</sup> 11:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
Thanks, will cautious next time. ] ] 12:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | Thanks, will cautious next time. ] ] 12:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
== edit warring and hounding == | |||
Please don't revert controversial edits without explanation. Also, for the second time, please don't go to articles just because I am editing them, especially not if all you're going to do is revert me. ] (]) 20:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:25, 24 February 2013
earlier on this program... (archives) (+) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Editing of this talk page by unregistered users is not allowed because choosing to edit without logging into an account creates a power imbalance in communication. All such edits will be reverted without comment. Unless you have a static IP, you are purposely preventing other editors from observing patterns in your editing behavior as well as purposely choosing not to have a permanent place where other editors may reliably communicate with you about those behaviors. If you are allowed to make this choice, then I choose to rectify this imbalance by ignoring you. If you truly wish to communicate as equals, please create an account and become an established editor. Thank you. |
Carmenelectra
I'm not going to template a regular, but that's 4 reverts so far (and yes, I've contacted the other editor too) ... Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I deem removing a maintenance template vandalism (why else would there even be a template for that?). Your opinion? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed - though I'm not quite sure why that particular template, though? Can you explain a bit further? Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think that picture was on the page if wikipedia wasn't dominated by teenage males? In any case, I've taken the thing off my watchlist. It's one of the dumbest things I've seen here lately, but if "the community" wants it that way, it speaks for all of you. It's on the record that I am not part of this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree with you about the picture, and I see your point now. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think that picture was on the page if wikipedia wasn't dominated by teenage males? In any case, I've taken the thing off my watchlist. It's one of the dumbest things I've seen here lately, but if "the community" wants it that way, it speaks for all of you. It's on the record that I am not part of this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed - though I'm not quite sure why that particular template, though? Can you explain a bit further? Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
NPA
Insanity? Obviously you've got some reading to do as you seem to have the same misunderstanding that HiLo48 has. Toddst1 (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Acknowledged. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
complaint
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship_by_archiving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: your comments at Talk:Genesis creation narrative
This edit of yours has got me thinking. I'm having trouble clarifying my ideas though, so maybe you can help. It seems to me that NPOV requires us to represent all significant views. Since most reliable sources, especially academic sources, are written from a secular viewpoint, we should usually follow their lead. However, in areas where there is a substantial non-secular viewpoint, e.g. religion, we should not discriminate or make judgments as to whether the secular or non-secular viewpoint is correct. We should endeavor to explain both sides without taking sides. This is why we should not treat all religions alike: some have lots of reliable sources supporting their claims to truth, others do not. Does that make any sense? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- It does. My response was to the definition of "secular", e.g. "non-religious"; quite a few people confuse it with "atheist" or "anti-religion" which is incorrect.
- In general, I am not too interested in that discussion anymore since it just goes around in circles, and I've come to the conclusion that this is a case of systematic bias which remains unsolvable in the near future. Your last sentence describes exactly that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly what I was confusing it with, thank you for clarifying. I agree that this discussion seems pretty intractable - hopefully we can find some kind of compromise eventually :) --Cerebellum (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
RFPP
Thanks for catching the duplication- I missed the earlier request when I looked at the list.Tvoz/talk 07:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jesus,Argument from silence".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot 16:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Edit warringThank you for the notice. Yes, there is a current dispute with User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB), and I am trying to resolve the matter. Discussions are not helping, and I shall take it to the dispute resolution forum soon. Chaipau (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, will cautious next time. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |