User talk:Seb az86556/archive45

Barack Obama

Plug > pull. Now go away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 > haneʼ 01:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

@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 > haneʼ 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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 > haneʼ 02:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 > haneʼ 04:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 > haneʼ 03:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Just an FYI

There is an ongoing discussion at AN right now that involves the IP editor with whom you were recently in conflict; they were given a 24-hour block from Bwilkins about four hours ago now, and they posted an unblock request on their talk page. I've brought attention to it, and since you're involved in the situation, I figured you might be interested in seeing how it evolves from there.

Also, I would like to know why you reverted their recent report to AIV. Not only was it not vandalism or a test edit of any sort, it was actually a perfectly valid concern about a trolling-only account and an apparent sockpuppet. Kurtis (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I missed that drama. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also appreciate an answer to my second point. I'm assuming the revert you made on AIV was a mistake? Kurtis (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoberry

Looking at [2], it looks as though this Yeoberry's complaint above may be due to disputes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Riplinger, Talk:Gail Riplinger and more recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed Baptist Church where he has a huge conflict of interest (although when he's been asked about it on his talk page he's deleted it). It may be the Riplinger article that is most involved as Yeoberry submitted an AFC what was deleted as an attack page around the same time as the AfD.I'm not sure if it's worth bringing this up at ANI - I would have added it there if I'd seen it in time. He's a pretty aggressive editor when he wants to be. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... if you think it helps, g'ahead. I figured it needs to be killed right away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis creation narrative

You just left a comment there that said Done fixed, with a big green checkmark. I didn't understand what you were referring to. Can you please explain? Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

complaint was about link origin, not target; and your question belongs on the article's talkpage, not here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question

Seb, I'm not sure if you've noticed the question I asked you above, but I would like to know why you reverted this report to AIV. That edit was not vandalism or disruptive in any way. Kurtis (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Now go away

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.

Seriously. If you won't answer, why shouldn't I just replace the section? I don't understand the problem with the question. --Onorem♠Dil 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you don't understand how trolls operate. Now stop feeding him. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Afrikaner

I thought that it would be useful to have a category to isolate the non-bio articles. Bad idea? If you want, I can request a speedy deletion for the Afrikaner category I just created. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to name a Category "Afrikaner". See for example Category:German. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yepp, seen it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Miscavige

Given the recent expansion of Michelle Miscavige, would you consider withdrawing your AFD submission? Andrew327 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick sorry there

Btw I apologise for [my annoyed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trigaranus&diff=547027755&oldid=546867161 reaction] to the vandalism notice. I'm not quite sure how these get to be dealt out "on behalf of" people, but anyways. Apart from that, tip 'o'the hat to a speaker of the Diné language. Hope you are gonna pass that language on to the next generation. Trigaranus (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I achieved my goal; this IP was so pissing me off. I'm gonna wait a while and then take the passage out again. As for Navajo, there is no next generation in my case; but rest assured that I know quite a few 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds who can ramble on in Navajo all day long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO1_okMgsao Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith accusations

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia and editors should avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence. The purpose of AfD is to discuss articles, not editors. I revised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern) to remove your accusation of bad faith instead of closing that AfD request. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(18:37, 27 March 2013 Elockid (talk | contribs) deleted page Germanic peoples (modern) (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Chaosname) in violation of ban or block (See aslo Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic peoples (modern)))

Doppelgänger

I apologize, and I hope we can put that behind us. You said that I "might come from a culture where names do not matter; handling someone else's name or names without their permission is the highest possible offense". I'm a Westerner, as probably the majority of English-language Wikipedians are. I don't know what culture you're from, perhaps Arab or Navajo. To the best of my knowledge, by western standards "handling someone else's name or names without their permission" is too broad a statement to say much of anything meaningful about how offensive it would be, tough certain insistences of that would centenary be highly offensive. Based on the ANI, it appears that in this case, I've misjudged my own culture, let alone one where it is the highest possible offense. I hope we can put this behind us and treat this as watter under the bridge. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your infobox that says you live in Arizona. Perhaps you're a westerner too and I've really misjudged my own culture. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's already yesterday's snow, as they say. (I'm glad I got my point across though.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]