User talk:TheLeopardTree

Welcome

Hello, TheLeopardTree, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. 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! NeilN talk to me 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified 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 Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Administrator's noticeboard notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Single purpose account POV-pushing against academia and common sense, probable troll. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being, from your contributions and comments at ANI, either not having sufficient clue to be a contributor, being not here to improve the encyclopedia, or trolling. Whichever it is, it's at a level where your ability to be a contributing member of this community isn't possible until it's understood how your editing is wrong, and how you will improve it. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheLeopardTree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have addressed the three criteria I failed to meet with my initial proposal. I still feel they aren't necessary since the proposal is based in diction, but dictionaries vary and definitions do change in time. Furthermore, and more importantly, policies and standards exist with reason and it is the onus of all contributors to follow those guidelines when submitting content; content subject to general- and community-approval. I respectfully request reinstatement of my ability to post edit-requests. I should not be held accountable for others faults, only my own. I hope this shows I am here to contribute meaningfully, and any future edits would be submitted with due diligence to both intellectual honesty and academic protocol. --- God is a concept espoused by, and oft debated amongst, philosophers. This concept attempts to explain an immeasurable phenomenon, much like our concept of time; just as time is not a fixed, static reality the broad philosophical concept of god is neither fixed or static. God is a symbol that represents human explanation of the universe; its creation, continued existence, and the mechanisms by which the universe continues to be. Each culture has it's own interpretation of god based largely on tradition, heritage, and common mores. Christianity divides god into two opposed concepts, named God and Satan, to explain the nature of existence whereas Native Americans express a wide diversity of beliefs concerning the nature of god. Whilst there are, oftentimes, vast differences between interpretations they all abide by the defined idea that god is "the supreme or ultimate truth or reality". Athiests, who deny the validity of theism and its theistic-interpretations based in faith, often adopt a scientific interpretation of god in their attempts to describe, explain, and ultimately understand the phenomenon we call existence. Jainists, Wiccans, Norse, Greeks, et at. & etc. describe the nature of being differently, though all describe god. Deism (from Latin deus "god", '-ism'? embraces the existence of god, inculcated by theism, while rejecting the supernatural influence depicted in religion. Some theologans have postulated interpretations of god evolve ? in tandem with the evolution of culture, heritage, and mores. Notable religious leaders have opined that religion, faith, and an understanding of god is wholly personal and that a strong belief in your understanding of god was more important that the god you choose to define your understanding.? Ghandi suggested an understanding of god was not subject to ones religion ? ? and the Pope has voiced similar opinion.?? Martin Luther King, Jr. explained that interpretations of god are not competition but differences in understanding.?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheLeopardTree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If it the opinion of the administrative committee that I have been blocked for submitting "original content" I assure you that is simply not the case.

But, in the interest of fairness, justice, compromise, and academic equitability I will revise my current edit (previously referred to as content, which has raised eyebrows) to a finessed, nuanced edit rather than a comprehensive overhaul.

1, "In theism" [citation needed].

2, "In deism" [citation needed].

3, "In pantheism" [citation needed].

4, "In atheism" Definition of "God" needed. Specifically " (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being".

5, "the greatest possible existent" needs to be removed, replaced in a new sentence starting after "object of faith", and reworded as "The term god itself is most-broadly defined as "the greatest possible existent"[previously cited]".

I am dismissing the trolling complaint altogether. If Plaintiff had understood the diction he would already understand "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (in a religious context, which that definition is - a religious context) is not the same as disbelieving god philosophically as "the greatest possible existent". If he denies the existence of the greatest possible existent than I understand that is a belief but is certainly not the position of most athiests I've encountered and borders on single-POV badgering and additionally imposes nonexistent criterion upon the definition of atheism. Furthermore, I included "most" and never said "all". Since he was never present for discourse - I doubt he understands the nuance well enough, and has shown no ability or effort to do so - his duplicitous complaints and personal attacks are untrue.

So far I have addressed: lack of verifiability, lack of sources, burden of contribution, adhering to Wikipedia protocols, no original content, single-POV allegations, and trolling(?). What remains is finding Clue (which apparently doesn't exist in the WP pages) so it is safe to assume that is administrative veto without merit - a clause and power that surely exists though far-be-it from me to understand how&why that would ever be enforced. If additional charges have been levied against me do tell. Perhaps you could just cite the entirety of protocols and say I violated every one as I'm sure that is what Plaintiff imagined when I said athiests "often adopt a scientific explanation of god" so I can adequately address, to the Plaintiff, why he is simply treading foul territory here.

Thank you for your time and consideration, may ethics bind you. Honestly & Respectfully, TheLeopardTree (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Decline reason:

Per tiresome wikilawyering and failure to acknowledge reason for block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheLeopardTree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Look I want the same things you do. I've made my case so everyone knows where I stand, would you please unblock me so I can address the inaccuracies in the diction. I've made every attempt to constructively build the encyclopedia. So far I've been the victim of "Narrow self interest and/or promotion", "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Treating editing as a battleground", "Little or no interest in working collaboratively", "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention", and dishonest editing.

"Inconsistent long-term agenda" please realize this is/was my first edit.

Specifically

1, "In theism" [citation needed].

2, "In deism" [citation needed].

3, "In pantheism" [citation needed].

4, "In atheism" Definition of "God" needed. Specifically " (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being".

5, "the greatest possible existent" needs to be removed, replaced in a new sentence starting after "object of faith", and reworded as "The word god is most-broadly defined as "the greatest possible existent"[previously cited]". TheLeopardTree (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

State_(polity) "A state is an organized community living under one government"

revision: A state is "an organized political community". per Oxford definitions 2 & 2.1? TheLeopardTree (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Government "A government is the system by which a state or community is governed"

revision: Government is the means by which governance is enforced. It refers to "The group of people with the authority to govern", "The system by which a state or community is governed", and "The action or manner of controlling or regulating". per Oxford definitions 1, 1.1, & 1.2 TheLeopardTree (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Law "Law is, generally, a system of rules which are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour,[2] although the term "law" has no universally accepted definition."

revision: Law is "a system of rules"?? transmitted to our senses through written word, oration, physical reinforcement, etc. TheLeopardTree (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Music "Music is an art form whose medium is sound"

revision: Music is art transmitted through sound. or, at the very least: Music is the form of art whose medium is sound. TheLeopardTree (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Nirvana_(band) "Despite releasing only three full-length studio albums in their seven-year career, Nirvana has come to be regarded as one of the most influential and important rock bands of the modern era."

revision: Despite releasing three full-length studio albums in a seven-year career, Nirvana is widely regarded as one of the most influential rock bands of their generation. TheLeopardTree (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Grunge "referred to as the Seattle sound" revision: 'Seattle sound' "growling" vocals revision: growling vocals, no quotations "apathetic or angst-filled lyrics"

revision: anti-social lyrics TheLeopardTree (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Anarchy "Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral"

revision: Anarchy is generally considered a political philosophy which regards the prevailing state as immoral. TheLeopardTree (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Socrates "According to Xenophon's story, Socrates purposefully gave a defiant defense to the jury because "he believed he would be better off dead". Xenophon goes on to describe a defense by Socrates that explains the rigors of old age, and how Socrates would be glad to circumvent them by being sentenced to death. It is also understood that Socrates also wished to die because he "actually believed the right time had come for him to die." Xenophon and Plato agree that Socrates had an opportunity to escape, as his followers were able to bribe the prison guards. There have been several suggestions offered as reasons why he chose to stay: 1.He believed such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher has. 2.If he fled Athens his teaching would fare no better in another country, as he would continue questioning all he met and undoubtedly incur their displeasure. 3.Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do otherwise would have caused him to break his "social contract" with the state, and so harm the state, an unprincipled act."

revisions: "According to Xenophon's story" [citation needed]

"1. He ... has" [citation needed]

"2. If ... displeasure" [citation needed]

"3. Having ... act" [citation needed]

addition: Socrates postulated only "the one who knows" can know. [The Trial of Socrates, Stone, I. F., 1989, 978-0385260329] TheLeopardTree (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Decline reason:

I don't care what edits you want to make, I want to see evidence you understand why you were blocked and what general behavioural adjustments you will make to prevent being blocked again, if you were to be unblocked. Nick (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You do realize that you're digging your hole deeper with such a long-winded unblock request that still fails to address the reason you were blocked in the first place. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unaccustomed to speaking with others who know. Most just scream and shout and generally bang around acting ignorant.

In my defense he jumped in front of my edit without warning, voluntarily. I should've contacted the authorities immediately, that was my err.

{{unblock|1=I apologize for my behavior and will edit with care while keeping the administration informed on any future events similar to these while doing my level-best to uphold the policies as established by the Wikipedia Administation and working with other contributors collaboratively & constructively towards the ultimate goal of improving the Wikipedia.org website for all users.}}TheLeopardTree (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

And what exactly were the policies and guidelines you were going against? We just need to know you understand why you were blocked. We already assume that you were (possibly) trying to help as you understood it, but (assuming you were trying to help) there were problems in your methods of helping, not in your desire to help. Do you know what those wrong methods were, and what the preferred methods are? The former were pointed out multiple times, and the latter were explained. If you do not understand what you did wrong, what's to stop you from going right back to the sort of behavior that got you blocked to begin with? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have covered my appeal fully in preceding posts. Will someone kindly remove Ian from my page, thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. TheLeopardTree (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Leo

Talk page access revoked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  PhilKnight (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)