Naturyl
Hello Naturyl. Funny thing blanking your pages like that but it did make me notice you were new so I guess it worked!
Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Angela 03:25, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the welcome, and I'm looking forward to participating in the community.
Nat 03:31, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Nat, is "Alamaba" the same as Alabama? If so and you're near Birmingham sign up for the Universist Meetup, I'd like to chat with you, we seem to share similar interests... rare for this area. Deist 2 Oct 2003
I doubt that I'll get into Birmingham anytime soon, as I'm in Huntsville. But I do appreciate the invitation and would likely take you up on it if I were able. Nat 05:09, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I go to Huntsille every once in a while... in fact I will be living there for 2 months next year... I'll email you before then. Say, I often refer to our state of confusion as "Aladamnbama" myself :-) Deist 3 Oct 2003
It's actually weird how many of us one can find under the rug here in Alabama. Not only do I live here, so does my "right hand man" at Zetetica, a guy who goes by the name of Rando and is a hardcore naturalist. Now I discover that you live here as well. Neat. Maybe we all need to think about forming some sort of Alabama association for naturalism (specifically for Alabamians)... that would be pleasantly idiosyncratic in light of the Alabama stereotype.
Well, I don't think I can take it much longer... I am probably going to Atlanta or Nashville or Memphis after med school. I'm not attached enough to Alabama to work on an Alabama-only organization :-) I was one of the few people counterprotesting the Roy Moore rally in August and really the scene just made me sick. I spent some time in San Fransisco recently and life is just so much more enjoyable when random people you meet are liberal. BTW, take a look at my latest edit for universism, it's less like the text of the site and more straightforward and clear, i think you'll like it. Deist 9 Oct 2003
Naturyl, you might be interested in this: http://www.alabamafreethought.org/ ...they have monthly meetings Deist 20 Oct 2003
Pantheism/Cosmotheism/Needle
editHey. Whats this needle stuff you were talking about on Talk:Pantheism? It seemed a bit overwrought, but of course I am intruiged. Information please? Jack 02:54, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
He's a whack job on the net who likes to harass people. He harassed me and a few others for over two years. Do a Google search for "needle cosmotheism" and similar terms to get some background info on the guy.
Look, your probably right about needle. But everybody deserves a chance to grow, and he at least hints at the idea that he might become a quality contributer. That may be unlikely to happen, but its vital to try, particularly since banning is something that is extrordinarilly extreme on the wiki. I think you leaving because of needle is about as bad an idea as leaving because you think I made a mess out of your pantheism article way back when. Maybe you just want to leave, but if not, take a break from the articles that peeve you off. Or, maybe just focus on the naturalistic pantheism article. Its pretty hard to argue that needle has alot to add to that article, besides maybe a sentance stating something like "It has been said that those pantheists who embrace atheism are marxists, just as it has been said that cosmotheism is a nazi denomination. Classical Pantheists however continue to reach out to both wings of this fractured, all inclusive community" ;) Stick around, will ya? Jack 07:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jack. I'll consider it. As you suggest, I'll have to stay away from the pan articles (sadly), because I really know that Needle is nothing but trouble. That's too bad, because those articles are really the only ones I feel any interest in contributing to the Wiki. Still, I can stick around and check my watchlist from time to time, I suppose. It's just that aside from contributing work in my area of expertise, I don't really have any business with the Wiki, and if Needle is going to foul things up, I felt it best to just go ahead and leave. In any case, thanks for the concern, and do take care. :)
-Nat
Feel free to contact me off the wiki anytime, my contact information is on my user page. Jack 04:30, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jack,
Nat is a "Usual Suspect" that actually has been "deliberately distorting and harrassing and censoring and banning" both me and COSMOTHEISM and really NOT the other way around at all!!!
"Cosmotheism, Pierce tells his audience, differs from most other religions with their dependence on truth as revealed through revelation or as passed down by authority. It also departs from pure rationalism. Cosmotheism is grounded in a synthesis of objective and subjective knowledge, says Pierce. Cosmotheism is the union of the Creator's immanent consciousness, what our reason and senses tell us about ourselves and the world, and the findings of science. In addition, offers Pierce, Cosmotheism is in accord with the truth that comes from deep within us if we are willing to attend to it, from our genes, from our collective race-soul.
The problems Cosmotheism faces in being accepted in this culture do not stem from its validity, Pierce contends. A major problem Cosmotheism confronts is that the mass of people will never have the chance to accept or reject it on the basis of its merits, because they will never learn about it in the first place. Those who control the public discourse in America— the news and entertainment and publishing industries and the schools— do their best to censor and malign anything like Cosmotheism, claims Pierce. Plus, if people do manage to learn about the tenets of Cosmotheism and accept them as valid, they still face the tough challenge of manifesting them in their lives. Given the religious and ideological orthodoxies of the moment, Pierce declares, it requires a good measure of personal independence and strength of character to stand up to the rejections, pressures, and sanctions that result when people think the "wrong" things or act in the "wrong" ways. The best way around that state of affairs, says Pierce, is to break our isolation from one another and to form a community of “consciousness and blood.”
Here is where you can get some more "objective" and "unbiased" and "factual" information about COSMOTHEISM, about Classical Pantheism, and about Dr. William L. Pierce's own unique "interpretation" of it/them:
Best regards,
Paul Vogel aka the Needle
welcome back
editI'm interested in hearing what you think of a few articles, particularly pantheism. Also Naturalistic pantheism could really use some help/ a rewrite, I really thru it together out of writings from you, and I don't know much about the subject. As it now stands it seems biased against the official pantheist organizations, so it would be cool if you could NPOV it/ make it a bit more useful/fair. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at it. Nat 00:29, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
oh, I'm Jack BTW Sam Spade 01:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Naturalistic pantheism has become mostly Pan atheism, a pseudo-pantheism, under the Directorship or leadership of "Naturyl" of the UPS, of the Universal Pantheist Society and most especially under the leadership or Directorship of Paul Harrison of the WPM, or of the World Pantheist Movement.-PV
Here are my pov's. I defended vogel because he needed defending, and stopped defending him when he became indefensable. I am a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, and thus defend others when necessary. I have also defended an "intellectual anarchist"/self described troll, and a guy who wanted to place drawings he had made on ape-man pages, among others. I see that you are in favor of restricting the rights of those w unpopular POV's. I am not. Sam [Spade] 17:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I am not in favor of restricting people because their POV is unpopular. I don't think that is why anyone wanted to take action against "Needle." Many people didn't like his views, but no one was trying to get him banned until he started misbeghaving. I think one of the things that caused some confusion is that he began misbehaving almost immediately, so there wasn't much time to consider his POV apart from his behavior.
- In my opinion, Needle's POV stinks, but I wouldn't see him banned for it. The fact is, he behaves abusively at every internet forum he visits. I predicted his demise, and my predictions came to pass exactly as I had written them. The reason for this is that I own several of the forums he had been banned from for similar behavior years ago. Needle's tactics are remarkably consistent, his behavior today is the same as it was five years ago.
- Why take up for someone who behaves like Needle did? Why do I see you defending racists in the talk pages for white nationalism? How come it seems like you prefer to defend those with a very specific "unpopular" POV? Do you defend people with POV's other than racist?
- I'm just curious about this.
- Nat 09:26, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I edit controvercial articles generally. If your curious, feel free to review my contributions / theoretical biases. Sam [Spade] 15:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Disendorsement
editSorry to see your disendorsement, I thought we were on better terms than that. Hopefully you'll see things differently in time. This conflict with you is especially embarrassing because I show off that Pantheism article as my finest work here, particularly to friends and family, and get alot of compliments. Hopefully we'll be able to work things out in a way all sides can be comfortable with (NPOV). I have to say, I'm feeling kind of sad at the moment, but it's good to have you back. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 22:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, like I said, you're a nice guy, and it's nothing personal. My disendorsement is only based on the way I see the issue of POV in regard to the one article we've both worked on. Of course, it's always possible that my own POV is biasing me in that regard. I just call it like I see it.
- It doesn't look like my disendorsement will matter much, anyway. Besides, I'd fully expect you to disendorse me for such a position, given that you feel I have POV issues of my own (at least in regard to pantheism).
- I do appreciate your civility, and for the record (if it would be helpful), I would be happy to attest to that fact. You could have reacted angrily to my disendorsement, but you didn't. Good on ya. --Nat 05:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
vandal
editTalk:Dialectical monism is not the place to bring this up, try WP:ViP. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer to rewrite this article. I did some research, and IMHO, it's now ready to pass the notability test. However, precident (ie, recreating a previously deleted article) could make things difficult. However, if you're willing to do some legwork, I'd go on IRC or the Village Pump first of all and ask how to begin going about this. Good luck whatever you decided to do. --InShaneee 03:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it is now notable. I'm going to follow the VfU discussion for a while, as it's pretty heated right now, and depending on the outcome, it may be worthwhile to write a new article. Thanks for the support. --Nat 03:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nat, I posted a response to your comments regarding "virtual sockpuppeting" on the VfU page on this topic. Throughout the discussion there, yours has been a voice of reason, so I am a bit perturbed that you thought that I was advocating any form of "sockpuppeting" at all. I was only trying to make the point that people should not vote anonymously. I don't really see a problem with new members of a community voting once on an issue that is of importance to them. That's how communities grow and come together. Arevich
Hey
editYour note imspired a few thoughts, which I will try to list separately and briefly
1st, sorry for taking so long, but I didn't notice your note until just now. Its usually better to put new notes on the bottom of a page.
2nd, just so you know, I ended up agreeing w your assessment of Vogel. At first I thought it was a free speech and/or political / religious censorship issue, and that his erratic bahaviors were due to his newness or excess of emotion. However there came a point where I realized he was purely a trouble maker / vandal / possible nutcase, and so I recused myself, and am no longer his advocate (havn't been for about a year now).
====================================================================================
editIndeed! LOL! :D
Sam Spade, you had "recused yourself" and only because you are really just a spineless "moral coward" and really no more and no less, that is far more interested in being "popular" with your "Kosher" masters than with upholding the "Whole Truth". Time will tell just who or whom has been the actual nutcase, trouble-maker, or vandal, and I do assure you that it NEVER EVER has been ME, but, it actually has been the "deceptive" tactics of the "Usual SSEE* Suspects".-PV
http://www.cosmotheism.net http://www.nationalvanguard.org
====================================================================================
edit3rd, thank you for thinking of me in such a way! Its a big compliment, and a pleasent suprise. Glad to see your back here, and good to hear from you.
Now, onto the subject of "universalism", and/or the "Universist Movement". I know what universalism is, indeed I not too long ago overhauled the article on it, moving content to and fro between there and Universal reconciliation (have a look and let me know what you think, if you have the time ;). I do not, however, have a clue what the "Universist Movement" is. I assume it has something to do w http://universist.org/ ? If so, it may very well deserve an article. If so, said article ought to be @ universist, or Universism, or some such. My thought would be to put an article there (side stepping the undeletion debate), and see how that goes. If its a new article, by a new author, there should be nothing wrong w that. One problem tho... I am not finding much info on the subject. See [1], [2], [3], etc... Anyways, while I may not want to write the new article (or become a "universist" ;), I will vote to undelete the article, and am willing to provide advice or discuss options with yourself or other interested parties. Again, glad to see you back, cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, Sam. Thanks for stopping by. I don't have time to write much at the moment, but I appreciate you having a look at the article. --Nat 04:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See Universism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- On second thought, make that Talk:Universism. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re:
editSee my reply @ Talk:Pantheism#Spinoza. Glad to see you back around, Sam Spade 00:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
cleanup tag
editYes, it's not a well-written philosophy article. If you want me to remove it from the philosophy category, by all means. Dbuckner 11:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- For example the introduction is poorly written. Lots of pseudo-philosophical jargon. Dbuckner 15:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I really liked your articles, especially Dialectical Monism, you may be interested in some of the stuff we're doing which is all based on the same philosophy, see OrganicDesign:Site map, the main project is a network architecture/programming paradigm built on the Taoist principles (and bagua). We're also really into wikipedia and do a fair bit of mediawiki hacking/extending too. --Nad 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Taijitu. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taijitu. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Nat (talk) well, it failed, as I knew it would. That editor was clearly on some kind of personal vendetta against God knows who, and it's abundantly clear to me that Wikipedia will be better off if and when he leaves the project. --Nat (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article James Quirk (presidential candidate) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unelected political candidate, fails to meet criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Totally unreliable sources.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Of course he's unelected. Does being unelected mean one is not a candidate? I don't mind if you categorize him among minor or "can't win" candidates, but to deny he exists at all is both unencyclopedic and undemocratic. Granted, Wikipedia only cares about the former, but really you have more ridiculous candidates listed every year. Satanists and Discordians, etc. I'm a long-time Wikipedian myself and I've seen way more absurd things get articles here. -Nat (sorry, can't sign properly, no tildes on playtoy laptop).
Nomination of James Quirk (presidential candidate) for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Quirk (presidential candidate) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Quirk (presidential candidate) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, phooey. Y'all deleted it before I remembered to add that I am anti-Zionist. LOL. Oh well, F--k the Jews. Additionally, I love how "consensus" can be reached here in like 2 days. I think an incredibly successful project on the Internet could be a non-deletionist reference work that includes anything *anyone* thinks is noteworthy. Of course, it would require an enormous server space, but not necessarily a lot of work - all the "notable" articles could simply be forked from your deletionist paradise here, and then added to everything else you consider yourselves arbitrarily qualified to remove from consideration. Nerds. This is part of why I quit a dream job at WikiHow - because the wiki model inherently sucks and elevates socially-stunted basement-dwellers to "authorities" through a faux-democratic process. Nat (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- In retrospect, at least there was some minimal discussion rather than it just being 'speedy deleted.' I guess I can thank you for that. Sadly, in the few days it was up, it didn't result in any media inquiries, which is unfortunate because it deprives our American "democracy" of one more voice. You guys can thank yourselves for that. Great job upholding "notability" and being water-carriers for the failed establishment. We are the 99% - Occupy Everywhere. Best wishes, guys. :) Nat (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humanistic naturalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Interconnectedness for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Interconnectedness is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interconnectedness until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)