User talk:Self-ref/Satanism Sources and Wikipedia Citation Standards

anyone posting to my talk page about Satanism_(disambiguation) or Occultism issues in Wikipedia who seeks to canvas me about the unfair coverage or coordination you are receiving from editors or administrators, please notice the kind of turn over and inconsistency we are experiencing in content pages pertaining to these topics. please also consider that 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 [[Talk:Satanism|Satanism Talk page, 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, there is no administrative competence or will 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 that content vaporize or become vandalized 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 cite-bots.

the antics of juveniles in response to their ordinary treatment within Wikipedia and those who launch protest actions within it are sadly representative of a larger problem that Wikipedia 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, i have to point out that it's a kind of 'eddy' that continues because of Wikipedia's own policies and technics. objection by admins that these are merely stray idiots are generally agreed, yet this does not convince me differently about these much wider issues, to which i will repeatedly continue to point in our conversations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)