User talk:Lvthn13

You seem to be doing nice job. I observe how you choose words and express the Satanic worldlook with a lot of interest. An opportunity to have some open source information on real Satanism sounds attractively promising, and Wikipedia looks like a prominent place for this. Common Sense 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
A Mediation cabal case involving you has been opened at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-03 LaVeyan Satanism. If you would like to voice your opinion there, please feel free to do so. Thanks, --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigil of the Baphomet
Well the first possible issue I see when looking at creating the new Satanism template is the Sigil of the Baphomet. CoS as well as FSC use this sigil (it's not actually copyrighted by anyone) Church of Satan, Inc. attempted to copyright the sigil over a year ago and have not been approved (and likely won't be).

Case No. 78370060 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirms this. The actual ownership of the copyright, as per the probate settlement, is to be split amongst his 3 children (including his rights of publicity, royalties from books, and personal affects.)

The only reason I bring this is up is simply that the Baphomet should replace that ugly pentagram on the main template, and this way nobody can come back later and say that the Baphomet can't be used outside of the exclusive context of the CoS. (And it's a visual representation of LaVey's brand of Satanism on the entry page for Satanism on wikipedia) Are we cool on this? Absinthe (Talk) 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Satanism Topic
Lvthn, the edits to the template look good from my perspective. I'll just add the Baphomet and I think we're fine there. As for the main Satanism article itself, you're right it's awful, and almost entirely unusable.

What we could do is simply recreate the main article largely from the LaVeyan Satanism article (since I think we're agreed that "Satanism" in any other form isn't really Satanism). From there we can work on the specifics of the language and get it to a completely neutral point (though we're not far off as it stands).

With regard to the LaVeyan Satanism template and making it more "CoS-centric" I'm fine with that, in fact if you just wanted to make it a CoS template, you'll get no complaints from me.

As for any opposition we may face from other sub-sects and non/pseudo satanists, I think we can easily put a few links on the very bottom of the article that reference "semi-related forms of Satanism"... or whatever language we need to use. But considering that this is an encyclopedia where sources, notability, and consensus rule the day, I think we'll be hard pressed to lose if it ultimately has to go to mediation. Absinthe (Talk) 02:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that didn't take long. We have the first revert. Going through some of the logs, it seems like a lot of the people who oppose the Satanism section actually being about Satanism are non-Satanists... ULC "ministers" who happen to consider themselves "satanic" in nature and other small, un-notable, unorganized fringe groups. Absinthe  (Talk) 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Satanism
Greetings: yes, thank you for your work on the article. I left a notice on the talk page of the other user. Hopefully it will help. I usually try to keep protection brief.

Be careful of the WP:3RR; while I won't be enforcing it here (since I have an opinion on the article content, and said so on the talk page) you can report future violations at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to your question, I'm not aware of any specific policy prohibiting links to sites that advocate illegal activity; but you'd certainly be within your rights to take the link away and make the case for doing so on the talk page, for it seems like common sense to me. WP:EL has our policies on external links. Antandrus  (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Left Hand Path Project
Seeing as there are many conflicts in the Satanism articles, I've proposed a WikiProject to handle it. I'm currently going around trying to find support for it, and seeing as you have handled the Satanism articles for awhile, wonder if you might want to sign on for it? A project is desirable if only for organization and a way to mediate conflict. Assumably, there won't be too many arguments over "LaVey" Satanism as most of those occured with people who weren't LaVey Satanists who wanted exactly what has happened now (mainly that the main Satanism article is a disamubigation). Thanks for your time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals WerewolfSatanist 20:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Satan Speaks!


The article Satan Speaks! has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:BOOK, please add reliable, 3rd party sources to prove that this book is notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tim1357 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Satanic content
You are invited to share your thoughts on the matter at Articles for deletion/Hail Satan (book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.72.179 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)