Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:45, 19 March 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.

Barack Obama

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

you need to discuss those changes; they have been reverted on both articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do I *need to discuss* them? They were relevant additions, and I think well sourced.

There scandalously seems to be no negativity permitted in Obama's very lengthy Misplaced Pages article; which currently reads like a fanzine. Other biographical pages for living people, feature criticism/controversy sections, but not his of all people - which is both laughable and extremely irritating.Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

This rant belongs here. And yeah, you do need to discuss them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't ranting, that doesn't answer my question, and it's perfectly apt for me to answer you-the deleter of my work's comment in my Talk page, in yours.Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

The appropriate place to discuss changes to Barack Obama is at Talk:Barack Obama, where other editors can see your case for the changes and where a centralized discussion can take place. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

I didn't mean to put the warning on your talk page. only the ip users page. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• haha no worries mate, it was my fault. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just how we refer to everyone I guess haha. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of the Copernicus article. After intense discussions a consensus version of the lead was reached and this version was stable fo a long time. A few days ago some users started to editwar and tried to add a Nationality to the lead (that was one of the main conflicts, even mentioned at WP:Lame). However, the latest editwar has led to a discussion about some minor changes in the lead section, but there's no agreed "new" version and contrary to the claims of some users, the latest additions are for sure not the result of any discussion. I restored the initial version because I think we should reach consensus BEFORE we make these changes. To restore this disputed version and tell me I should discuss is a remarkable distortion of facts. Could you please restore the consensus version and wait until a new version is found. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you even read what other people have to say? There really is no using posting another block of text that reads like some courtroom defense cooked up by 10 lawyers... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you even read about the extensive facts of this situation?

I am sorry you feel the need to make repeated denigrating comments about this situation and my presentation of the facts. It's is easy to make a short comment if you don't address the facts that I have presented. Any time that you want to address the facts with me that contradict unsubstantiated opinions, let me know. I want to be able to work together in a constructive way.Wondering55 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The first step to that would be to take people's advice. Without that, your wiki-life will be a short one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Will you take my constructive advice? The next step should be that you stop making denigrating comments. Your advice might be taken more seriously then.Wondering55 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never made any such comments. You may continue as you please, you've been given my warning. This discussion here is over. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy

Hope you don't mind that I deleted something awful from the history of your talk page. My apologies on behalf of humanity: I find it hard to believe people would say such things. Have a nice day, as the saying goes, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah well, it says a lot about those who say it, not me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It does, but it's still painful when one realizes that not everyone is as beautiful, witty, and intelligent as you or me. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?

There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?. I'm telling you this because you were involved in Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Merger proposal and/or Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#UNMERGING_ARTICLES. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Our discussion today about English and the new Pope

Hi Seb,

I apologize about the discussion we had today re: whether or not the new Pope spoke English. I think you are correct that one's fluency in English is by no means a measure of one's intellect, character, or ability. My guess is that you are multi-lingual, as am I. I was also once a Jesuit. I only guessed that the Pope probably spoke English because it seemed to me that much of the world's academia does seem to value English fluency as a sign of a thorough education these days, whether we like it or not. Whether or not this is fair or reasonable, that is a windmill that we can tilt at on another day.

Take care,

Scott P. (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. This is unexpected and humbling. Thank you. I admit that my reaction might have been a bit too harsh, but understand that I deal with that particular assumption (no English=uneducated; the whole world must speak/learn it) on a regular basis. And I've seen the pain and destruction it causes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to apologize as well, a lvl-4 template was uncalled for. I should not have assumed bad faith. Aunva6 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish that each person, each nation, and each language were equally respected in this world. I have no doubt that the world would be a far better place. I commend you for your pointing this out. Scott P. (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

your reversions: suggestion

note that the following is only a suggestion:

while it is not against policy to revert comments on your user talk page, I encourage you to instead use collapse and archiving. editors may feel that they have valid reasons for posting, although the way in which they are posted is not quite acceptable. I also suggest that you try and discuss such matters with the editors in a civil manner, instead of just reverting and putting a template on their user talk. explain why what they posted was unacceptable, and hear them out on the issue (if they are civil about it).

again, this is only a suggestion, I cannot make anyone do anything, nor would I want to. Aunva6 (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't follow it. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Seb, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

AIV

Why the fuck did you revert me ? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)