User talk:Seb az86556/archive44

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)[reply]

Thank you. I deem removing a maintenance template vandalism (why else would there even be a template for that?). Your opinion? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{> haneʼ} 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with you about the picture, and I see your point now. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)~~[reply]

Acknowledged. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

complaint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship_by_archiving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{> haneʼ} 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 16:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Thank 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)[reply]

I just noticed you don't even know what's going on: He brought it up at ANI... w/o notifying you... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will cautious next time. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]