I noticed you're trying to nominate Classical pantheism for deletion but you're not doing it right. I have created the discussion page for you here if you want to state why you think it should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page World Pantheist Movement has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/pages/pantheism/89590536080?v=wall).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page World Pantheist Movement do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/pages/pantheism/89590536080).
   If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sent that email. I can't remember well what was in it ^^ (and you should probably work on that spam program too btw :P). The article needs indeed quite a lot of improvement. I have serious doubts about the various kinds of Pantheism the article speaks of ("classical pantheism" is one of them, "biblical pantheism" is another for which I can find absolutely no sources), Chritstian Pantheism seems not to exist according to christian sources on the web (something to do with omnipotence apparently). I have doubts about Hinduism as well (no sources, and the explanations given would imho suggest panentheism, not pantheism. Plus, Hindusim is normally polytheism). I'm also wondering if it's right to classify pantheism as "part of a series on God". Pantheists concepts are one of a kind, I think it should stand on its own, have its own box and link to subjects which are related to pantheism. I think I actually said at some point on the talk page that I could call a can of cola "god" and that atheists would still be atheists if they "believe" the can of coke exists, making my "religion" more atheist than theist.

Basically I have doubts about most of the article. It also seriously lacks sources.

I had a bit of a battle with an IP user with a rather weird behaviour, although he let me tag and work on the article after a while. It all started with "Pantheism can be theism but not atheism" in the article intro, citing the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (direct copy of the sentence, no quote plugin used, as if it were a fact when everything else I could find suggests otherwise). I have serious doubts about the quality of that Stanford encyclopedia as well, but well...

I basically emailed you to have some "experts" on the subject work on that article. I consider myself Pantheist(ic?), but maybe wrongly so, and know nothing of "classical pantheism" or any other kind of Pantheism. I also find it odd that the people who coined the term "pantheist" are being classified as "naturalistic pantheists" instead of just plain "pantheists". That's my take on it. I hope you can help :)

Ren ✉ 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look.Ren ✉ 13:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)I've added tags on neo-pantheism. That article is obvious OR, and will probably be deleted... I have to look into that. I have removed some tags on Pantheism, however I feel it's not "good" yet. The lack of references (secondary sources) is problematic. Otherwise you can always include primary sources (such as pantheism.net and confirm them with tertiary sources, such as stanford encyclopedia. You could look into things like encarta as well, apparently such refs may be acceptable on wikipedia.Ren ✉ 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ren. I agree about leaving some tags on it for now. There's no problem about adding sources, just that it will take a little while. I wanted to deal with the most shocking errors first :D Naturalistic (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I offered the deletion of the section with all the inline citations on the talk page :P I agree with everything you did, however you made a mistake, there were many self-published websites listed there that belonged to the major editor, a.k.a Mr. Robertson, not just one. I think I can remove the tags now, with the exception of notability, and probably nominate for deletion.Ren ✉ 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned the page into a redirect to Pantheism. Ren ✉ 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best solution - the whole thing was put together to puff up the principal author's self-published version of Pantheism anyway. Naturalistic (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that IP:99.179.146.104 has been pushing some kind of weird Jesuit agenda on the article. I reverted twice (around 40 edits in total). Since these are numerous small edits, please be careful when you edit Pantheism, otherwise it's going to be a pain to revert if s/he comes back again.Ren ✉ 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the communities was inappropriate. I have been in contact with all parties and they think that their inclusion is fair (Rabbi Ohr, Rabbi Barr, Ian Lawson,Rev.John Hopper). I will revert it back soon as I'm about to restore it with valid edits to near what it was. I would not have included them if they did not belong. I'm becoming somewhat of an authority on Religious Naturalism and know many of the leaders. Publishing something false would not go over well with them. The rewrite I did last year was in consultation with the group of 14 that did the original article. Would appreciate any help from you in improving the restored version.

I just saw your messages. I'll see what I can do. I haven't been on much recently. There is no special power needed to use the tags, you just need to know what the code is. If you look on the source of the page you should see the codes for the tags (between brackets and stuff)Ren ✉ 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Argh I have no time to deal with this. Nevertheless I'll try to contact some admins I know tomorrow to see if they can do something about this. Just for his actions on neo-pantheism he "could" have been banned, but I didn't do anything as B142something said Robertson had been away for some time.Ren ✉ 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Ren, whatever you can fit in, you have helped rescue the Pantheism article. You tip about gadgets was REALLY useful and I just installed a bunch of them, which will save me having to bug you with beginner questions. --Naturalistic (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis did you remove my inclusion of Paul Tillich to the list of religious naturalists? Tillich was very influential to a number of well known religious naturalists - a fact I am very certain about and merits his inclusion. If you read Tillich as I have you will find his thinking very pantheistic – his Being-Itself, Ground of Being, Power of Being, are compatible with the pantheism of Spinosa (modern pantheism is a sector of religious naturalism). He has been called a pantheist, panentheist and neo-pantheist by various writers. “Transtheistic is a term coined by philosopher paul tillich referring to a system of thought or religious philosophy which transcends theism, and is thus neither theistic nor atheistic” (religious naturalism). "God exists" means "I experience a depth in my being when I respond to reality with ultimate concern” (Tillich)” - again religious naturalist thinking, one sector of it. “Tillich rejects supernaturalism both on philosophic and scientific grounds (religious naturalism). His ultimately pantheistic ontology” - theologytoday.ptsem.edu I will be returning his name to the list shortly.

Hi Naturalistic, Category:Pantheists and Category:Pantheist organizations are daughter categories of Category:Pantheism. When articles fit into a daughter category, that is where they belong, not the parent category. It is redundant to put them in both. LadyofShalott 01:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. mark everything that should be referenced with a ^{[citation needed]}. check the sources. make sure they confirm what they reference. Make sure the refs do not belong to JLRobertson (check the whois) or that they are not paraphrasing Jlrobertson's websites or come from websites designed like Jlrobertson's websites. Each time he makes a revert on your edits make sure to warn him (with a template) on his talk page. Contact people who've had issues with him recently, make sure they do the same.Ren ✉ 08:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.I'd like to make some suggestions to you for your future editing. If you accept it or not, it's your decision. When feel see some statement is doubtful:

1) look for sources yourself

2) aks the author for explanation

3) ask for citation or reference ( ^{[citation needed]} etc.)

4) do not revert non-vandalism edits or those that don't obviously break any controversial rules like WP:SOAP, wp:OR etc. without the above actions but do as said in 3)

Regards Aregakn (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You better have started it that way and offered a "relocation" :). I have a message for you at my page. Come. Aregakn (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, you aren't there. Pls come back and let us think of where to put that part. Regards, Aregakn (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Naturalistic,

You have been making edits that are reminiscent of an old conflict on Wikipedia, and I would urge you to discuss them on the talk page and work with other editors to acheive some level of agreement.

I am proceding to restore information you have deleted saying that it is POV.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old conflict stemmed from the fact that the two most frequent editors were 1. An opponent of Pantheism and 2. A persistent troll who has been banned many times from Wikipedia. The conflict was with one or two heroic people attempting to restore accuracy and non-bias to the article. These people eventually gave up because the two editors just mentioned would revert the material sometimes within minutes of it being edited, time and time again. Right now I would strongly urge that you think carefully before restoring the POV removals since January 2010. To do so implies that they were removed for POV reasons, so you would need to establish that. It would be a huge disservice to Wikipedia readers, who currently have a reliable version, to subject them to inaccurate material. Most of the editors whose material was removed were passers-by who rarely appear again - so "reaching agreement with them" will in most cases be impossible. There was also POV material being inserted by people pushing a pandeist or panentheist agenda. With edits that are inaccurate, how can there be agreement? A compromise between accuracy and inaccuracy can only result in an increase in inaccuracy. If you want to list the removals that bother you, then I will address every single one of them or discuss them with you. --Naturalistic (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your revert count. You have exceeded your 3RR limit. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Jim, point taken. I am attempting to resolve this edit conflict by discussion in Talk:Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the "List of pantheists" page which I reworked today into a better format (based on the list of Deists page). Lots of people missing on the pantheist list (even John Toland). Maybe you can help me add names and descriptions with citations when you have the time. I think this page is very important. (Allisgod (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needed a lot of work and thankyou for starting. The previous format was unhelpful and unnecessary.

We should be careful to be sure that whoever we add are pantheists and give a source for that - since original research is not allowed in Wikipedia it has to be stated in a published or fairly authoritative web source - ie it cannot be just our personal opinion as editors that someone is a pantheist. An extra quote can help in contested cases (eg Einstein who has been removed many times over).

I am not sure that adding obscure people helps anyone - it tends to hide the many outstanding ones.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. By the way, I located the entire real quote about Einstein and pantheism. It's nuts how easily a misquote can be spread, even into many published works. I suspect the quote was at some point translated into a different language and then translated back to english, causing it to be reworded differently. The original source was in English so this is the actual wording:

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things." (Allisgod (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You guys sound like you could help me. I only discovered Pantheism tonight and I want to explore it a little deeper. I'm really more interested in Panhylism...I guess I'm just looking for more information. Of any form. A name, a book, a website. Alltheseusernamesaretaken (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I am able to find online regarding panhylism is mention of an essay by Comte? Honestly, I don't know who that is.. but I guess I'm going to find out. There is nowhere to find the essay, however and I think if it is available it is not in English. Suggestions? Alltheseusernamesaretaken (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Pantheism". Thank you. EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a volunteer at WP:DRN. Thanks for providing a statement at the Pantheism DRN. Could you also visit this section here and answer the couple of questions that are posed (in the bottom paragraph)? If you need help or have any questions, just click on my "Talk" link. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at DRN, it is not really acceptable to talk about other editors' behavior. Comments like "But in the last couple of days Allisgod has reverted to his original approach of non-cooperation and personal attacks" do not help at all (I'm not singling you out: this is a general policy). Can you please limit your future comments at DRN to objective statements about the content of the article? See Focus on content, not editors. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to use wikipedia so if this in a fucking crazy place, I'm sorry. Can anyone recommend some sites or books on Panhylism to me? I'm interested, yo. Thanks. Alltheseusernamesaretaken (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this page for deletion. Please share your thoughts, thanks. (Allisgod (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I second that nomination. All else in favor say "aye"!

Only kidding. I really have no say in what happens to this page... I just couldn't help myself. Alltheseusernamesaretaken (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naturalistic pantheism, 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) 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]