| Revision as of 02:26, 28 June 2010 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:54, 28 June 2010 edit undoIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits Clarifying the purpose of the link.Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| I have written an article for the book Hail Satan which is a collection of Satanic poetry. A christian user on Misplaced Pages seems upset and zealous in his efforts to have the article deleted. He has accused the article of vanity, whereas the article reads unbiased. The user in question also argues notability, yet the traffic log for the article since May shows over 1,000 visits. The article has also been accused of lacking sources, yet since this accusation proper sources have been added. The behavioral pattern however is arbitrary meaning when vanity is addressed and leveled - notability is argued, when notability is addressed and leveled - sources are argued. On the surface this seems less to do with an encyclopedic article's pertinence to Satanism and the Occult and rather the concern of christian users on Misplaced Pages to silence modern representations of Satanism in literature. I want to reach out to you in assuming unbiased concern and ask for your input and participation in the discussion of this article's deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hail_Satan_(book) ] 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | I have written an article for the book Hail Satan which is a collection of Satanic poetry. A christian user on Misplaced Pages seems upset and zealous in his efforts to have the article deleted. He has accused the article of vanity, whereas the article reads unbiased. The user in question also argues notability, yet the traffic log for the article since May shows over 1,000 visits. The article has also been accused of lacking sources, yet since this accusation proper sources have been added. The behavioral pattern however is arbitrary meaning when vanity is addressed and leveled - notability is argued, when notability is addressed and leveled - sources are argued. On the surface this seems less to do with an encyclopedic article's pertinence to Satanism and the Occult and rather the concern of christian users on Misplaced Pages to silence modern representations of Satanism in literature. I want to reach out to you in assuming unbiased concern and ask for your input and participation in the discussion of this article's deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hail_Satan_(book) ] 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :] ] (]) 02:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | :]. - ] (]) 02:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:54, 28 June 2010
|
This Talk page protected by the Good Faith Page-Policy. |
 | This user is a member of the Kindness Campaign. |
 Archives |
|
Good Faith Page-Policy |
Work
For namespace planning efforts:
see User_talk:Self-ref/Magi-wiki
For reference in revising the Satanism page,
see User_talk:Self-ref/Satanism_sources
General Discussion
Satanism
My friend, at last I have found one whom I may be able to reach! With speed, inform me this: Are you or are you not interested in any way about practicing Satanic worship in real life? If so, I urge you to contact me through my talk page as soon as possible. There is much indeed which I may be able to give you. My thanks, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have replied on your talk page. see immediately above for 'Satanism sources' where i have identified the third party sources we have yet accumulated on the topic of Satanism for reference in Misplaced Pages. I have acquired many more of a variety of types beyond this, but these are the ones that are mentioned in the talk threads of the pages on Satanism at wiki.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Satanic content on Misplaced Pages
I have written an article for the book Hail Satan which is a collection of Satanic poetry. A christian user on Misplaced Pages seems upset and zealous in his efforts to have the article deleted. He has accused the article of vanity, whereas the article reads unbiased. The user in question also argues notability, yet the traffic log for the article since May shows over 1,000 visits. The article has also been accused of lacking sources, yet since this accusation proper sources have been added. The behavioral pattern however is arbitrary meaning when vanity is addressed and leveled - notability is argued, when notability is addressed and leveled - sources are argued. On the surface this seems less to do with an encyclopedic article's pertinence to Satanism and the Occult and rather the concern of christian users on Misplaced Pages to silence modern representations of Satanism in literature. I want to reach out to you in assuming unbiased concern and ask for your input and participation in the discussion of this article's deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hail_Satan_(book) Blackson 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)