Revision as of 00:48, 15 August 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 Cultural Struggle ...Esoteric Topics.... Bold Edict Series Deleting Items Relation to catherine

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

Exploring the depth beyond the Satanic Bible page,
see User_talk:Self-ref/The_Satanic_Bible_(book)

General Discussion

Satanism Sources

I would like anyone posting here about Satanism or Occultism issues in Misplaced Pages who are reading this page to notice the kind of turn over and inconsistency which we are bringing to bear on its content pertaining to these topics. consider this before posting more asking for my help to assist you in changing the system, policies, or procedures.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing Sources, and Satanic content on Misplaced Pages

snip

reference to discussion on an advertizement book. - Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

insert - I have replied to you both at this location; your contention that nothing more needs be done with Blackson is of course correct.

I would have more interest in this subject if there was some kind of coalition discussion and centralized focus on citation to sources amongst wikipedians of LHP and Satanist persuasion, in which i have been willing to participate, and to which i have contributed extensively by organizing the central Satanism page at wikipedia, its archives, and its sourcing-base, since i know what the likely repercussions are going to be for all of occultism and New Religious Movement tangentals outside of this sourcing.

from what i have seen so far, however, there is no administrative interest in pursuing this outside my own (and i am not talking about merely contributing text to the pages, which is easy and we'll see it vaporize soon enough), so i have to wait until there is sufficient outrage or intelligent response mustered to address the Weapon of Effacement (see my essays on this via my user page archive) with administrative coordination; i have a library, online sources, and extensive source materials which i may seek to contribute to this project once i understand an intelligent cabal can coalesce in a mature fashion to withstand the editors and their cite-bots. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you, like any user who has their own lifeview, do face some difficulties here. ... Religion is not an issue here, that is a lie Blackson spread throughout the site and on social networking sites to trick people into flooding the AfD with complaints avoiding the actual issue. Once it was deleted, he filed a Wikiquette alert (which went nowhere), and has ceased to edit here because his advertisement was deleted. ... he's no longer here. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that Blackson is both doing a disservice to the project as a whole (which you are here properly underscoring) and ignorant of the overall issues pertaining to the limitations which Misplaced Pages's policies are having upon its content as its participants abuse these and the mechanism to dissuade content of lasting value in particular areas. I am making brief reference to them after having already identified this problem to you and your administration previously.

my point in posting here is not to support Blackson, but to point to what will need to be done in response to this to have a lasting effect on repairing it, which i do not perceive that you or others here participating find valuable.

Blackson's antics are sadly representative of a larger problem that Misplaced Pages has and is not addressing. I have outlined this myself, and even have an interest in trying to resolve it within the limits of my time, interior to the occult and/or Satanic milieu (/LHP project) or external to it within alternative wikis. I see that the latter is so far the choice of most of the interested, but when i come across the occasional protest by those such as myself or these other two now resident to my Talk page, i have to point out that it's a kind of 'eddy' that continues because of Misplaced Pages's own policies and technics. your objection that he was an idiot (agreed) does not convince me differently about these much wider issues, to which i will repeatedly continue to point in our conversation.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Aquino

That was deleted a couple years ago per an AfD discussion, if there are newfound references since then creation would be fine, otherwise not. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

very glad to hear that, Wizardman. since i have no link to the discussion prior then i cannot ascertain what would be "newfound" references. I have a great number of them, including Gordon Melton, Arthur Lyons, James R. Lewis and others who count Michael Aquino and his Temple of Set as worthy of coverage as a micro-Luther to the CoS Roman Catholics. how would you like me to offer up these references to you? I would think these kinds of things would be all over the internet as well, but i know that wiki has a higher standard of authentication.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)