User talk:Nate Keaton/Archive1

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Nate Keaton! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

I'm guessing you've come to the place where all CP editors come to be reborn. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I infrequently edit Conservapedia. I just discovered this site by googling Conservapedia and obesity. I came to ask if anyone is aware how to get in touch with Conservapedia sysops privately. There is no option to email on Conservapedia and putting a message on talk pages either gets ignored or attacked. Thank you. Nate--Nate Keaton (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You can e-mail Rob here, for all the good it'll do you. Welcome! P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ASchlafly gives an email address at cp:Conservapedia:DMCA_Agent, might be worth a shot. --Benod (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RobSmith is the person I'd like to speak with but he does not have an email address inputted into this site. 14:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave a message on his talk page, he'll prolly respond. Maybe. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 15:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Rob have email enabled? This shit is insane and talking about it in front of Ken is doing nothing productive. 15:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have emailed with Rob Smith. He says he is trying to take care of things but honestly I just looked at Conservapedia and it looks like "Conservative" is out of control and the owner of the site won't do anything to fix things. Nate Keaton (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nate. Sorry you find us so vile. :-) You might want to have a look at Ameriwiki and ASK if you are interested in other Christian wikis. But please stick around here if you want to. Cheers.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote on my page before implying I might be happier elsewhere, Bob. I said I find much of the anti-conservative and anti-religious content on this site to be repugnant and vile. I did not say I find you vile. I only know 2 other users at this website and they're fine by me. RobSmith emailed me about being sensitive to the anti-Catholic sentiment spewed by "Conservative" on Conservapedia but it is clear he is no longer in any position to do anything about it. I am flabbergasted that "Conservative" has Mr. Schlafly's ear after posting naughty rubbish all over the website.

Considering some of the insanity at Conservapedia it is surprising that I have gotten a stranger response from the people on this website, like Bob here who either misrepresented or did not read my message and implied I should leave, than I did at Conservapedia, where the place is set upon with fakers trying to get more user privileges so they can harass and abuse other editors. Mr. Schlafly was very welcoming of me in the beginning and I quite enjoyed corresponding with him at length. I've even made a few friends from Conservapedia who contacted me through this website's email. Hi guys. Rationalwiki is a whole different ball of wax. You've got Bob's odd message here, complete with a "Conservative" style smiley face to really drive home that he wants you to know he knows you know he got what you said wrong. And then this "Maratrean" emailed me to complain that Rationalwiki is not so rational but that apparently he is because he made up a false god that gives him some "ultimate authority for reason" that the atheists lack, as well as permission to lie about and commit heresies against the RCC. He also suggested I might be happier elsewhere. Why do you people think a Catholic man who has expressed dismay that all Christians get misrepresented as YEC would wish to have anything to do with the likes of this Storehouse of Knowledge? Why would I wish to participate at Ameriwiki which is apparently run by this "Maratrean" who is obviously not a social or economic conservative. "Maratrean" linked to a 350 page document I gather he wrote about his own false religion and, though he also read that I am a faithful Catholic man because he mentions that before he trails off into describing his apostasy and lying about the Church, it is really beyond me why he thinks I would care to read about his false religion. I hope Bob and "Maratrean" aren't the official welcoming committee. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nate. Let me take another shot at welcoming, though I'm not one of the core contributors here. As a not-all-that-conservative long-time CP watcher who would've liked to see that project succeed, I was cheering for you over there as the sort of editor who the project needs if it is to work. It's too bad the sysops are blind to this. As for RationalWiki, I guess you've already poked around a bit and seen what's here. I hope you'll find that most people here are also very friendly and helpful guys/girls, even if they disagree with you. I think it's safe to say that the site's membership is overwhelmingly atheist, and religion tends to be painted as irrational. That said, people have occasionally expressed the opinion that RW could stand to have more diversity among the views of its editors, and I think you would certainly find yourself welcome here. While there are some topics where you'd likely find editing an uphill battle that will bring a lot of arguments, there are plenty of places where a Catholic perspective would be very useful and no one would give you any trouble: say, expanding anti-Catholicism related articles, or clarifying the Catholic view of topics like YEC, where RationalWiki may have a tendency to paint all Christians as crazies when in fact it's a minority. Of course you don't have to edit Catholicism-related material at all if you don't want, so if you're interested in topics like alternative medicine or conspiracy theories, dive in! And of course, if you find RW mainspace isn't your thing, you can always just use RW to keep tabs on the insanity continually transpiring at CP: WIGO:CP and its talk page are the headquarters for that sort of thing, and plenty of editors only use those pages.

If you'd like to keep writing the sort of general articles you contributed to CP, RW is probably not the right place. Not that they aren't great articles, but RW tries to focus on topics vaguely related to its mission, rather than aspiring to be a general encyclopedia. I'd be hard-pressed to recommend anywhere but Wikipedia as a place for that, since as you've seen most of the alternatives are sorely lacking. Anyway, welcome! P.S.: Please don't mind Maratrean, we all agree with you that he's a lunatic, but that's not a bannable offense at RW. --Benod (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ameriwiki isn't Maratrean's (he's from Australia, I believe) but the almost eponymous Ameripedia's. As the whole concept of a deity running everything is not rational, why differentiate between Phil's idiocy and Vatican City's? Pippa (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Official welcome from a Senior Sysop

Welcome to RationalWiki Nate.
I think you are a lunatic in that you believe there is a magic man in the sky listening to your thoughts and intervening away as he sees fit. I assume you also believe that if a middle-aged virgin (and I don't mean Ken

) says a few Latin words then a cracker literally turns in to the tissue of a man who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. You are also a member of an organisation that has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on the world, to list just one example is the mass spread of AIDS as a direct result of the Catholic church's objection to condoms.
That said, you appear to be an honest man and genuinely wanted to see CP become a respectable conservative and christian wiki-encyclopaedia. It is highly entertaining to see not just two religionists but two christians go at it like you and Ken did.

So please, pull up a pew and make yourself at home here. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to entertain you but thanks for the semi-sincere welcome. Catholicism has and has had serious problems. So have many other institutions that also do great good. I don't expect you to accept Christ or live as I do. I would expect you to accept that you don't necessarily throw something out when there are a great many aspects of it that remain beneficial to society and the community of believers and others that can be salvaged. Peace. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Active again

Good to see you back on the interwebs.RandonGeneration (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. I've been busy with work, family, and going back to school but I sometimes cannot resist looking at the spectacle of anti-Catholic hate that one of the editors at Conservapedia is. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Have you jumped ship or just paying us a visit? Aceⁱ⁹ 18:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Good to see you. I look at this site from time to time. I just noticed that someone is going around writing articles on subjects related to Catholicism that this person doesn't know much about. I'm not a regular contributor to either place. Nate Nate Keaton (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for cleaning it up for us. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to. An article like Saint Peter is filled with speculation, references to unanimous consensus of scholars, claimed evidence, yet there is not a single citation. It's garbage. Nate Keaton (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What you remove

You took material out of the article on bishops. Below is some of what you removed.

• 26 Men Commit Suicide After Being Sexually Abused By Same Catholic Priest.
  

Surely people should know if priestly abuse drove many men to suicide. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You took the caption of a picture on a blog called "Unicorn Booty, gay is good", where the blogger was editorializing in an anti Catholic rant and promoted it into a quote. You then stuck the bit about 26 men committing suicide in as the title of the reference link so it only showed up in the references section. That gives the impression that your fake quote is real because it has a citation. That's bad. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Best has been convicted of many heinous crimes against many boys, this website claims only one suicide rather than 26. The Catholic Church protected Brother Robert Charles Best, but his victims finally brought him to justice. The gay website may be exaggerating. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't really put the suicide part in the article anyway. It was only in the footnote as the title of the link for the supposed citation for the nonexistent quote. That's what I found astonishing. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right, the gay website is unreliable and the Christian Brothers were responsible for letting Best get away with so many crimes rather than the bishop as far as we can tell. Suicide inquiry won't shed light: bishop. This does not belong in the bishop article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a more reliable source for the 26 suicides which may be the tip of an iceberg. Robert Best was responsible only for some, a priest named Father Gerald Risdale also drove some of the victims to suicide. Still you are right, the bishop was involved late in the affair and there is no evidence linking him with the cover up that the public knows. Sex abuse led to 26 suicides says policeman Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New Pope

Hi Nate. I'm interested in your thoughts on the new Pope, if you are willing to share them. Thanks. Poht (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm less and less interested in the Vatican. I have recently turned almost completely to studying my faith with the non-diocesan Catholic groups I was already involved with. But feel free to ask me questions. Nate Nate Keaton (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a lot I'd like to ask about the faith. Is there a way I could message you about it privately? Poht (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Intellectual

Why don't you see if you can qualify for university or community college? You are clearly intelligent enough to become something better than a "welder and machinist by trade". Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Way to go, Proxie. Tell somebody who points out the anti-labour stance of a website that he/she could be "something better than a 'welder and machinist by trade'." If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The anti-labour stance of Conservapedia is bad but some manual workers should get encouragement to find work that's better for someone of their talents. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And some find full satisfaction in their tasks and don't need patronising. One of the most intelligent people I know worked as a postman. They kept trying to promote him but he kept on refusing. He was, and is, as happy as they come. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, a well-qualified tradesperson probably makes more than I will as an adjunct prof when I graduate from my very-highly ranked doctoral programme. And won't have to spend weekends grading papers/writing lectures/doing research on their own dime etc. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I had to have a college degree to get this job. I could not be something better or happier than this man with this family. Thanks. Nate Keaton (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair Winds and Following Seas

I'm sorry you were blocked at Conservapedia, but because you seem so genuine, I hope you are able to spend that time "not an Conservapedia" within communities where people seek a true change and you can help them. My best. Poht (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will still enjoy reading parts of Conservapedia and I certainly understand Mr. Schlafly's decision. I admit not being the most helpful editor there. I was more interested in interacting with Mr. Schlafly because I grew up admiring his mom a lot and then got distracted by things on that website I wouldn't let teenage kids looks at. I've always been involved in really supportive and helpful communities within the Church and my family, and my work has been more interesting. Read my user home page. I treat every day as an opportunity to serve. Thanks for your message. Be well. Nate

I, too, am sorry that you got killed. Any time you want to come to ameriwiki, feel free. You will be welcome there. SamHB (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)