Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:28, 17 February 2013

earlier on this program... (archives) (+)

2009 15255    july 2009 49597    august 2009 12718    september 2009 6884    october 2009 20650    november 2009 27742    december 2009 2010 38848    january 2010 31594    february 2010 18754    march 2010 14511    april 2010 18480    may 2010 9998    june 2010 13864    july 2010 17597    august 2010 6479    september 2010 12322    october 2010 22341    november 2010 6914    december 2010 2011 27363    january 2011 15692    february 2011 16618    march 2011 12744    april 2011 9267    may 2011 5866    june 2011 13911    july 2011 4768    august 2011 4600    september 2011 5340    october 2011 13038    november 2011 15661    december 2011 2012 5527    january 2012 6684    february 2012 6179    march 2012 7290    april 2012 8723    may 2012 10438    june 2012 5929    july 2012 7638    august 2012 14328    september 2012 16008    october 2012 9891    november 2012 1822    december 2012 2013 12285    january 2013 8185    february 2013 18650    march 2013 6264    april 2013

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)

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)

Complaint 2

Please don't follow me around to articles. Humanpublic (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)