Nascentatheist

School has started. Nascentatheist is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archived Talk Pages

First Archive

Second Archive

Open note to Jason Gastrich

Hello, Jason.

All right, now that I've made what I think are the proper notifications, let me make a suggestion to you. First, I realize that your maturity issues keep you from seeing this issue rationally, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you've been banned, and it's a bit silly for you to try to sneak into the site and pretend to insist on following the rules while you are breaking the rules. You cannot edit Wikipedia. You cannot remove anything, you cannot add anything, you cannot do anything. As one administrator put it, "banned means banned." I've added emphasis. I won't bother to explain to you the difference between the black-listing of your gossip domain and the retention of the Durango Bill URL, and why both are appropriate. You aren't capable of that level of understanding because you cannot approach the issue dispassionately. You need to understand that if you want to see it's removal, you're going about it the wrong way. You can't do it yourself, nor can you insist upon it, in part because you are banned and in part because you insisted so much on including your own gossip group so much that no one takes your attempts to remove the site as anything but "sour grapes," that is, a juvenile attempt at "if my site can't be here, neither can his." We have no choice but to see it that way, Jason, and you're the person who put us in that position. Durango Bill's site is not a "hate site" in the normal sense of the word. It exposes you and it does so truthfully. Yours is a "hate site," even if it isn't your site (it's actually Google's), because you clearly hate the target(s) of your ire, it's loaded with demonstrated and deliberate falsehoods that have been refuted in numerous other discussion areas, and it is clearly the act of an obsessed and hateful individual. You insist on its existence and its inclusion because you know that you can't actually justify your own behaviors, so you must try, in some way, to attack the credibility of your critics. You seem to believe, in your own emotion-laden way, that your own transgressions in the realms of honesty and integrity are invalidated if you can successfully assassinate the character of your critics. But you're so unimportant in the great scheme of things, Jason, that you don't even have that many critics. Their reputations seem to be relatively secure, if only because your own behaviors toward them have all but validated what they have had to say about you. Even so, because you have been forced to retreat from so many forums and you've been banned from so many others, your previous notoriety has waned. Even your "boogie-man" ignores you, these days, despite your claims to the contrary. Your latest accusations and "evidence" could be easily refuted (you got almost all of it wrong either in fact or in application), but there's no point. Even you know that you have no credibility, otherwise, you'd post your accusations where others could respond to them and you'd post them under your own name and not that of another sock-puppet; and as soon as you refer to them even in general terms in forums that you don't control (e.g., Farrell Till's discussion list), you wouldn't run as soon as you are challenged about them.

Really, Jason, it's time for you to grow up and move on. Wikipedia doesn't want you, and you have no desire to be a part of it, anyway. You told me that you would one day be a "rule-abiding" member even as you violated those rules, and when the discussion of your reinstatement was closed, you still had the opportunity to present your case and answer my questions on your talk page, but you didn't have the insight, even, to know that, and now it's too late. When you are trying to work your way back into the good graces of the community, you make fairly neutral noises, but as soon as you don't get your way, you throw temper tantrums [1] [2] and berate the project. You expose yourself over and over, as a relentless POV pusher who has no interest in anything but his own agenda, and you'll do anything to forward that agenda. But enough is enough.

I realize that it's probably a waste of time to try to reason with you. You are not a reasonable person and you never have been, but there's always some possibility that, somewhere, deep in that immature, delusional mind, you have some capacity for reasonable and adult behavior. It is to that that I appeal, but only this one time: Grow up. Move on. Don't just tell us that you'll brush the dust from your sandals, do it. You've laid too deep a foundation for your reputation and you'll never recover. You'll never be seen by this community or any other as a mature, level-headed, dispassionate contributor to Wikipedia, and you'll never be seen as a mature, level-headed, honest and truly Christlike figure outside of this environment. If you're as "gifted," talented, industrious, and intelligent evangelist as you'd like us to think you are, you'll find another focus for your ministry and make it successful. So far, what you're doing isn't working. - 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your post quoted in an arbitration case

I've quoted a talk page exchange of yours in an arbitration case involving User:MatthewHoffman. You may wish to comment. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Role of User:Nascentatheist and response of Adam Cuerden. Thanks. Carcharoth 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Appears to be a closed issue, regardless. - Nascentatheist (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)