User talk:NaturaNaturans

Welcome

Hello, NaturaNaturans, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good place. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

will do. thanks

DRN for pantheism

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Naturalistic pantheism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Naturalistic pantheism, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Naturalistic pantheism, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

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]

Reply to your post on Talk:God

Reply to your post[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"[2]? 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)[reply]

No comment. Let's move forward. Allisgod (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [4]; "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]