User talk:Theology10101

Please Discuss Here and Sign Your Statements

Given your persistent refusal to discuss changes first I have asked for intervention here. I note that you have seen fit to delete previous requests and warnings from your talk page. --Snowded TALK 05:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who started the messages on the talk board and been trying to be productive. I have no doubts that if an administrator looks at what is said and done, that you'll be charged with harassing me by reverting every edit (by not being productive) that I've done and essentially holding me prisoner by stalking my edits and reverting each one of them. I've sourced my contributions, all I ask is to let the objective truth be told, even if you object to Christianity or any other philosophy Theology10101 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears many other users have been having many problems with Snowded (talk) and has been harassing others as well, please see his talk page Snowded (talk) for further complaints on him Theology10101 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent actions

Its normal if you raise something with admins to notify any involved editor. You might want to note that for the future (although I see it was archived within action). Now I assume you willselectively edit your user page again to try and cast yourself in a better light. However the history is always there for people to see. --Snowded TALK 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well at least you admit that you stalk and follow me around everywhere I go. Theology10101 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see him admitting anything of the sort. I have your talkpage watchlisted, yes, but that is only so that I pick up on silly, unfounded comments like that. Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And this response, rather than an apology is all we can expect --Snowded TALK 05:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you are stalking me? Theology10101 (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you think I am stalking you. I've explained above that I am not "stalking" you; I keep your talkpage on my watchlist, yes, but only in relation to the article dispute at Naturalism (although that being the only area you seem to contribute to I guess you could say I follow all your edits). Ironholds (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You followed me all the way over to the Catholic portal...you're watching EVERY contribution I make...then slander me....you are stalking...Wish you had better things to do...I should get a new user id and abandon this id in order to keep you from following my every move like a 30 year old pervert on a 5 year old girl Theology10101 (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the policy against personal attacks. I investigated the catholic portal edit because I suspected it was you running for reinforcements, which it was. I have never slandered you; indeed, I have repeatedly defended you against accusations of trolling. That you respond by accusing me of being a troll and (apparently) comparing me to a paedophile shows a deficiency on your side of the fence, not mine. Ironholds (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called an analogy and you need to stop writing to me by doing so you are trying to get reactions out of me and I wont stand for that. Please for the dozenth time....leave me ALONE! Theology10101 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Final post, and then I'll go; you seemed to repeatedly fail to understand analogies when I was civilly discussing content with you on the Naturalism talkpage; funny how these skills suddenly develop. The fact that it is an analogy doesn't matter; taking it as an analogy, you accused me of stalking you like a paedophile rather than as a paedophile. Does that sound less offensive to you? Ironholds (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't want any civility....that's why you follow me everywhere and wont stop messaging me on my talkpage. I do have to say it's better to use the analogy "like" rather than "as" because if I used the word "as" that would imply you were a pedophile, which - as far as I can tell - you are not. Just as if I were to use the analogy, stink on a pig, wouldn't imply you smell bad...just that you seem to not be able to leave me alone. I'll take your word that you'll do exactly what you said you were going to do and make that your last message, I'll also take that as you'll stop following me around to post after what I write....and yes you did threaten me saying I was canvassing in a bad way and you wanted me to stop(it was at least done in intimidation), which I did not do out of the scope of what is allowed aka "Neutral Canvassing" ....in any cases...your analogies on Naturalism didn't do anything besides say "it's not related" You didn't explain why or how it wasn't related...and what I wrote was related to that very article...from articles from all sides of the isle...You didn't have anything that could be as a mandate to support your position, and I'm sure it'll be challenged in the future and the side of Truth and yes there is a definite truth...either it's a lie or Truth...not both. Such as the property of fire is to burn and the property of water is to wet...definite Truth will ultimately conquer. Thank you for the lesson on bring friends into an article. Lesson Learned...Thank you Theology10101 (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Theology, you are in effect vandalising articles, edit warring and refusing to discuss issues onthe talk pages. When you do go there you just repeat your previous points and fail to engage or even attempt to understand the arguments of other editors. When you behave like that you should expect other editors to check your contribution record. When you make complaints about other editors to the administrators but do not publish the fact on those editors talk pages, then you make it necessary for people to check your contributions from time to time. Some of us spend a lot of our time eliminating edits by vandals and that is one way its done. You can of course change your ID (if you do be careful of sock puppetry WP:SOCK. Your behaviour above comparing editors trying to deal with your disruptive editing as pedophiles is unacceptable. I would strongly suggest that you find an experienced editor (and I am not volunteering) to mentor you. If you use the pedophile accusation again, analogy or otherwise, the probability is you will be reported for a breech of WP:CIVIL --Snowded TALK 08:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quit trying to get a rise out of me. This didn't have anything to do with you. Please don't contact me anymore Snowded Theology10101 (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not interested in getting a rise out of you. If you forum shop or vandalise articles expect more comments here, if not there will be no need. If you act as a collegiate editor, seeking consensus you will find life in Wikipedia more enjoyalble. --Snowded TALK 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naturalism (philosophy). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns Toddst1, I too am concerned because the user Snowded is "not engaging in consensus building" and is reverting every edit I've ever done in what seems to be an attack on me, frankly I don't know what to do in that situation, if you can help me in any way I would be very grateful Theology10101 (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

.