User talk:NaturaNaturans/Archive 1

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism
Watch your revert count, you have exceeded your 3 revert / 24 hour limit. See 3RR. Please discuss your issues in talk:Pantheism. Edit warring can result in a block. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. How do you deal with someone who tries to control a page and cannot be reasoned with in the talk section? (Allisgod (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC))
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good place. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. Please always provide an edit summary with your updates. That helps other understand both what you have done and why. If you think of the number of people watching Albert Einstein who must look at the differences to find out what you have done, you will appreciate that not proving an edit summary wastes a lot of other editors' time. Your edits may be reverted if there is no edit summary and the difference is not immediately clear. --Mirokado (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * will do. thanks

DRN for pantheism
Hi. Could you check out the DRN at DRN ... there are a couple of questions posed that you can answer. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic Pantheism and Classical Pantheism
I hope you have read that I am on the case with the Naturalistic Pantheism page, where I agree completely that there was far too much about the World Pantheist Movement and wider sources are required. It would greatly simplify both our lives if you could give me a few days respite before editing that page.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? I was going to remove the nonsense material either way.  Listen, it's really obvious that NP has been defined in a way you are obviously going to be uncomfortable with (both to my surprise and apparently to yours).  If you'll be editing the page, we might just want to go straight to dispute resolution and not waste time on edit wars.  NP is most often attributed to Spinoza and determinism, just like Classical Pantheism.  Are you going to live with the facts or fight reality?

Of course I will be editing the page. There is no way that you have looked at more than a minute percentage of all the 1780 book references, and you look at them in a biassed way seeking confimration of your own position only. You are in no position to state what the term is "most frequently" used for. Whether it's attributed to Spinoza is irrelevant - because in many ways he is a good representative of Naturalistic Pantheism as defined by the others cited here (deus sive natura, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus chs 4 and 6). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalistic (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edits to Talk:God do not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your post on Talk:God
Reply to your post on Talk:God: No threat was made or implied. Regarding Wikipedia policies: it is generally considered part of an administrator's job to point editors to policy, to explain policy and to enforce policy. If my language appears overbearing, I suggest it may be a cultural issue. I attempt clarity and brevity; it may be that you are taking that as overbearing rather than terse. I note you are trying to abbreviate my name in some edit summaries; I don't blame you, it's a pain to type. May I suggest KC or Puppy; I am called both here. (Mind you, I'm a 50 year old puppy, but On the Internet... etc.) Please let me know if you still have questions, concerns or complaints. Please simply reply here; I will watchlist your page. Killer Chihuahua 19:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message KC and I appreciate your explanation. A part of the issue is that you are simultaneously taking on the role of an administrator and also an opinionated editor.  You happen to be both and have every right to take on both roles, but it would be helpful to be clear with what role you are representing when commenting because, as I said, it appeared overbearing to me.  In any case, I appreciate the sincere message and will exercise more thoughtfulness on my part as well. Allisgod (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I have an opinion, but are you sure you meant to call me "Conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions; obstinate - headstrong - stubborn - self-willed"? There is a difference between having an opinion, even a strong opinion, and being an ass. I would appreciate clarification from you. Killer Chihuahua 16:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment. Let's move forward.  Allisgod (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish; I move forward in the clear opinion that you just basically called me an ass, and when asked for clarification, you chose to say "no comment" which is generally reserved for politicians caught with a mistress or their hand in the till. Killer Chihuahua 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you called yourself an ass. You can call yourself whatever you wish.  It seems to me like you're trying to bait me into an argument.  Why is that?  Is that a policy I missed? Allisgod (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In what alternate version of English is me explaining what a word you used to describe me is generally taken to mean, complete with a helpful link, and then summarizing by saying "You basically called me an ass" is somehow twisted around to mean I took that appellation upon myself? This is bordering on trolling, now. Killer Chihuahua 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when does "opinionated" mean "being an ass"? Those are your words not mine.  I wonder, does Wikipedia have a policy about victimization or playing a victim?  If not, you are demonstrating that they ought to have this policy. Allisgod (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Passive-agressive behavior is what you are accusing me of, I presume, however nothing could be further from the truth. I am trying to help you, as I have already told you many times. Your hostile reception of my attempts is not useful; try to understand what I am saying, rather than assuming bad faith.
 * Regarding "ass"; why yes, I consider "Conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions; obstinate - headstrong - stubborn - self-willed" to be more or less an ass; as you called me that then as I said above, "you just basically called me an ass" - you may disagree that you meant to do so, you may disagree that "Conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions; obstinate - headstrong - stubborn - self-willed" is being an ass; you may decide that was exactly what you wanted to call me; but saying I called myself that does not parse if you read our discussion thus far. "Basically" is obviously a disclaimer that it was not a verbatim quote but a summation, paraphrase or synonym. I surprised each time you reply to me at your hostility and rudeness; I'm tired of your accusations of ill will; I am about out of patience with you. I thought you would be a good editor if you learned how to do things around here without pissing everyone off and/or breaking policy; I'm wishing now I'd never wasted my time trying to mentor you and help you, since you seem determined to be argumentative and accusatory, no matter how I approach you. Killer Chihuahua  22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You suggested I called you an ass when all I said is you're "opinionated". Then you said I'm like a politician "caught with a mistress or their hand in the till"; then you accused me of "trolling"; now you're accusing me of "hostility and rudeness"... and I'M assuming bad faith???  I suggest you have some editors that you respect come read this thread and tell you what they think.  If you are trying to help great but I think most people can see by reading this thread that YOU are the one making most of the assumptions and making accusations of ill will.  Allisgod (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm quite serious. If you look at the beginning of this mess, I asked are you sure that's what you wanted to say? and gave a helpful link to show all those words are from the definition of, or are synonyms for, opinionated. Please go click that link (which I added twice n this section of your talk page.) I stated my thought that perhaps you'd meant I have strong opinions, and did not mean to call me those names. You responded No comment - which specific response I criticised when I said that phrase is generally used for politicians with somehting to hide, and I stand by that - I think you chose poorly when you used it - and I made sure you were ok with leaving me with the impression that was what you meant to call me - at which point you went over a logical cliff from my point of view, and accused me of calling myself that. So here we are now, and Yes, I am quite serious. I did not ABF, I asked, several times, and you've done nothing but tell me it's me saying what you said, and further accusations. Please take your time and re-read this very section. Killer Chihuahua 13:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your English writing sounds better than mine (I'm born and raised in the U.S.) so until now I did not really assume you were seriously "asking" me what 'opinionated' means. The word suggests its own meaning of 'having lots of opinions' and/or 'having strong opinions'.  The definition that pops up on Google has a negative exaggeration (although most of that description still doesn't amount to 'name-calling'; a brilliant person is often stubborn and has been known to be called "conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions", for example), I thought you were purposefully looking for something to argue with me about by citing that.  If somebody calls me "opinionated" I do not consider it particularly offensive or derogatory (and certainly not 'being an ass').  Most great minds are considered "opinionated".  My point was that if I have strong stubborn opinions AND I am an administrator, those two roles may conflict and cause issues, and I believe they did in our Talk:God discussion.  When you cited that definition it sounded to me like you wanted me to expand on my statement with a bunch of examples and get into a further debate, which I did not wish to go into any longer, so I stated, "No comment.  Let's move forward" - which I actually thought was a way to get out of the mess, but then your reaction a few days later was a surprise to me but apparently a misunderstanding and wrong assumptions both ways.  Sorry I did not take the effort to just explain what i meant by opinionated, I had no idea it was a sincere question. Allisgod (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I submit for your consideration that if you and Google definitions disagree about a word's meaning, Google is more likely to be correct. That is not an "exaggeration", it is the correct meaning of the word, as I stated in my very first post on the subject, one may have strong opinions without being "opinionated" which does indeed carry with it strong negative connotations, despite your apparent ignorance of that and your willingness to argue with dictionaries. So no, I was not asking you what opinionated meant; I was telling you, in the form of a helpful link, and then asking if that was what you truly meant to say; to which you responded "no comment" rather than confirming or correcting. In the future, try to assume good faith a little more; absent strong evidence to the contrary, everyone here should be assumed to be trying their best to improve the encyclopedia, and to be sincere and positive in their communications. Whenever you assume ill of someone's statements, rather than trying to take it in the most positive interpretation possible, you are very likely committing an injustice against them. Regarding my response to your "no comment" I stand by my assertion that is generally used, largely by politicians, as a way to not discuss negative statements about them; your use of it rather than correcting what you meant to say was unnecessarily abstruse. We have an article on it, but it's not very good. I recommend instead the much clearer Urban dictionary |definition; "The reply to a question that you wish not to answer due to the inconvenience that your response may incriminate you in one way or another." as indicating the generally accepted interpretation of "no comment" as a response. As a side note, I utterly disagree that Most great minds are considered "opinionated" and will hold to that view lacking a strong source supporting that assertion. Am I to take it that you did not, then, intend to insult me and you meant "having strong opinions" rather than "opinionated" (with its actual, dictionary meaning complete with all its negative connotations)? Killer Chihuahua  16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're lecturing me in being "sincere and positive" in my communication and then calling me ignorant and abstruce. Please go "help" someone else.  I'm no longer interested. Allisgod (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Do you bother to read anything I say, or do you just half-ass scan it???? That's a serious question, this is not the first time you've gotten something I said completely backwards. Please note I am STILL assuming good faith; I presume if you took the care to read rather than merely scan you'd comprehend and respond so; I do not assume you do understand and are only twisting my words backwards to annoy me, troll-like.
 * I was not telling you to be positive and helpful, I was telling you to try to read anything anyone else says to you as though you were positive they were trying o be positive and helpful. If you ever actually understand anything I say on the first go, I might decide you don't need help. but as it is you are merely providing more evidence that you do. Killer Chihuahua 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been reading your words very carefully and I think you need some help, actually. I'm making a complaint because this is harassment. Allisgod (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Post ANI-closure
Allisgod, I was about to make some comments in the ANI thread, but it was closed. Having read the thread above, I get a pretty good feeling that it was the genesis of your complaint on ANI - however, at the same time, I get a pretty good feeling you either misread or misinterpreted a great deal of the above thread as well.

Wikipedia is, indeed, a community. Administrators are elected by that community because of their knowledge of policy. In most cases, they may not act as an admin in areas where they actively edit, and thus must educate on policy in those areas in lieu of using "tools".

As I read the above thread, KC appears to be genuinely attempting to guide you - you appear to have become belligerent by ascribing your own personal meaning into something, then full-out refusing to explain yourself. It is, indeed, a challenge to accuse someone else of doing that when you were the first one to do it.

Complaints of "admin abuse" are important to investigate - and as such, we require evidence. If the above is your evidence, then I hate to say that the evidence points more clearly to you. That does not stop you from feeling like you have been insulted - I encourage you to re-read the entire exchange from a different point of view. Take a look at where your statements actually inflamed the situation, rather than calming it.

Please also be careful with throwing even further inflammatory words around: for example, you claim "harassment", which is a word that has very strict meanings. Accusing others of being "friends" merely weakens your own argument. Please recognize I'm not here to trash you, undermine your feelings, but to simply ask you to review your personal actions in order to help resolve what appears to be a mostly self-inflicted wound (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I assure you I've already reread through the threads. Your 'feeling' on this matter is because my discussions with her do not in any way start on this page and you need to read it all to understand what she is doing.  It starts in the [Talk:God] page and that's where most of the problems escalate to her making a threat and a series of insults which I called her out on and led her to bring the discussion to my talk page.  But what does it matter really?  I don't have time to read every Wikipedia policy to figure out how to game this system to get my way just to improve articles that are being controlled by people like KC.  Waste of time was the lesson for me today.  In the real world, people like me are intelligent successful fortunate healthy people.  But people like KC probably need to behave as they do to find a place to achieve these same feelings ..in this virtual environment.. which clearly leaves limited room for a person like me.  She wins!  Yay, I wonder what she won.  I will refocus on my chosen environment, completely avoiding people like her. Allisgod (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Allisgod - KC gave you some great advice above, mainly: "read anything anyone else says to you as though you were positive they were trying o [sic] be positive and helpful." Bwilkins and others have given you advice and you've taken it as if they are against you.  The idea of Wikipedia is that no one is against anyone.  You can work with atheists as a believer and build a well rounded Wikipedia article (not that I know if KC is one or not).  The problem comes to play when you start perceiving others as 'opponents' and take their advice as criticism.  Step back for a moment and pretend you are not 'Allisgod.'  You are a random 3rd disinterested party with no prior feelings about KC or anyone else.  Reread the discussions again and see how you feel.--v/r - TP 17:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, so you made a conclusion based on a clear prejudice you have for my username - which had nothing to do with the discussion at all. But of course you have 'nothing against me'.  This just gets better and better. Allisgod (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, nobody that has posted on your talkpage today has anything "against you" whatsoever. We're sincerely trying to bring you about understanding the community norms, rules, and policies that you agreed to when you starting editing this private website.  We're not admins because of power - we're admins because we serve the community. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest comes to mind. We're just here to 'help' you!  Like I said on that other page, no wonder so many expert editors give up on Wikipedia.  It's like cops overseeing cops.  As long as this structure doesn't change, this website's relevance will fade and all your 'help' will prove to be a giant waste of time.  But don't worry, I'm just going back to being one of the people you all write about.  Carry on. Allisgod (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing lasts; neither you or I nor the sun or the sky, our clock runs fast, the time is nigh. You can make this place whatever you desire, a personal heaven or a burning hell, it's your choice.  You can spend your precious minutes complaining and spreading negativity, or you can build beautiful things and bask in their luminous glow. What will you do? Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Allisgod, you are misunderstanding Tom Paris' example; he did not form a prejudice, he only made the logical deduction that you probably believe in a deity due to your username; if that is not the case it is merely an error on his part, and not a prejudice or bias of any kind. Similarly, he tossed out "atheist" as someone of a different POV, and this did not mean he intended to state anyone is or is not an atheist. I am not concerned about his using that as an example, because that's all it was - an example, or you could think of it as an allegory - it was not meant as a judgement or a statement of fact. He could have as easily said "You might be a cat, but you can still edit with KC!" although his sense of humor is usually not that lame (that I've seen.) The point is not that you are a religious person, or not; or that I or anyone else you've edited with is an atheist, or not; that's immaterial. The point is that people of differing POVs can edit well together here if they remember to assume good faith and trust that we're all here to build an encyclopedia, absent extremely strong evidence to the contrary. I am very sorry to see that you're doing the same with TP as you have with me; you didn't trust that he's trying to be helpful, which he is; you immediately became hostile and accused him of prejudice. This is your problem in a nutshell; if you can overcome it, I think you'll be an excellent addition here. If you cannot, you will find trouble wherever you go on Wikipedia, because the problem is not what other editors are saying, it is what you are reading into it which simply is not there. Please try to see this, and you will be happier and everyone will be able to move forward with editing. We really are all on the same side here; the side of Wikipedia. Killer Chihuahua 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's take this example: an older woman bitter at the real world for one reason or another - probably few real life friends, unhappy life, etc - who finds her paradise in control and enforcement on a website that gives her such opportunity to control people and finally get her way with anyone who even slightly disagrees. Miserable losers need happiness any way they can find it.. even if they need to turn themselves into keyboard fascists.  But listen, I'm just writing this as an example of how you shouldn't assume bad faith from such an example.  As long as you don't assume bad faith, I won't either.  It will prove you've been right all along. Allisgod (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to illustrate by your "example"? TP was illustrating that people of two different beliefs or POVs can edit constructively together. The only thing I can see that you are illustrating is that you are trying to insult me, perhaps to try to anger me. That is pointless and highly unlikely to succeed. I suggest you cease that approach. Killer Chihuahua 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * why, what will you do, throw your 'weight' around? The examples illustrate that I hardly know you and am going by limited information of who you are and your intentions, so you ought not assume bad faith on my part for using that limited knowledge to illustrate an example.. Unless you're a hypocrite. Allisgod (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, an example to "illustrate that [you] hardly know [me] and [are] going by limited information of who [I] are and [my] intentions" would read more like "Let's take this example: there's an editor on Wikipedia, I don't know anything much about her." See the difference? In the first, you're trying to insult me, by painting a picture of a bitter lonely "miserable loser" - hardly a neutral or civil thing to say! and then hiding behind AGF. That's not how AGF works. In the second, (my example), you would be refraining from speculation, especially negative, insulting, or other potentially hurtful speculation. That is how AGF works. Killer Chihuahua 01:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * hiding behind AGF? Unheard of!  I am aghast!  Who would do such a thing!!  That's sarcasm.  I am just trying to help you understand your words have consequences.  I suggest you review your approach..  Or else!!   Allisgod (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello friend
I don't want to interrupt or offer an opinion on the above discussion, but will just say hello and offer an ear if you need it. I've been an editor here for many years, and do a fair amount of work helping editors, particularly newer editors. Honestly, I like doing that more than writing. Sometimes, people bump heads, talk over each other, or just get off on the wrong foot, and an outsider is sometimes helpful, not to take sides or interfere, but just to provide information if it is needed. We do have too many policies it seems, and often, they don't make sense or seem to contradict each other, but I'm pretty well versed in them and would be happy to answer any questions or address any concerns you have general topics here, again, without interfering or taking sides. Wikipedia can be frustrating at times, but I've also found it can be very rewarding and genuinely fun. Often, what is needed is just knowing someone you can go ask a question about general topics or policies, that isn't editing the same articles that you are. If you would like, I would be happy to be that point of contact for you. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 02:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate this message very much. Allisgod (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will around part time during the holiday break, but will try to give any question on my talk page priority over other issues.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)