User talk:Timotheus1000

A tag has been placed on Temple of the FreeSpirit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Unsourced, non-notable organization. Poorly written; something that appears hardly notable. If the Sinagogue of Satan hasn't an article, I'd hardly say this warrents one.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ≈  The Haunted Angel  01:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Horrible article

 * Talk:Temple of the FreeSpirit has been moved here and merged.

There are no references, links, no real notable facts, the article's in poor shape, and it's set up horribly. Those are only a few flaws I noticed when I glanced at it for about five-ten seconds. This needs to be fixed immediately or it might be deleted. // Decaimiento Poético  01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have recently founded the Temple of the FreeSpirit,and I am in the process of writing a better article on the Temple of the FreeSpirit for wikipedia! sincerly Joseph Perkins
 * This 'organization' has no importance and does not need or even deserve an article, for many reasons. Get rid of it. // Decaimiento Poético  02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess you are a LeVayan satanist?
 * That has nothing to do with my decision and opinions. I suggest you reread my first post and the speedy deletion tag. // Decaimiento Poético  02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the right to determine whether a new group or any group is or is not of importance?And I think what i asked you has something to do with it!

There are no references, links, no real notable facts,well what do you expect when a group is just founded?
 * You fail to understand what I'm trying to say. I have every right to determine if an article is of no importance or not when: 1) Less than five people, besides me and the other user listing it for deletion, know about it; 2) There's no information on the subject whatsoever; 3) The author of the article is also the founder of said organization; and 4) It's written entirely in a POV manner, with the author and founder being treated as a well-known figure among Satanists. You're obviously very possesive of this article seeing as how you created it, but the fact of the matter is that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If someone feels a subject doesn't deserve an article, they have every right to say so. // Decaimiento Poético  02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So your going to harp on this article,and not other articles like say the one on the First Church of Satan which has only 1 link to it's website and no other varifiable information about the group at all.

I hope your happy,because I have deleted it.

DecaimientoPoético, I was checking out Satanism on wikipedia as a part of my research for an artical,and I could not help but notice how fast you come down on this guy and his group knowing totally from reading the artical that the Temple of the FreeSipirt is a new satanic order and a theistic one at that and you promptly proclaim the group of no importance

Plus i noticed how when he asked if you are a LaVeyan satanists you blatantly say that has nothing to do with it.I must admidt i agree with him that being a LaVeyan satanist has to play some role in your decalaring his group to be of no importance. I've checked his website out and while it is apparently very new and only been up for a little while I have found it interesting,and have joined his yahoo group to learn more about the tradition of Theistic Satanism he promotes.{{buckshotjones))

The problem isn't the religion or its followers or founder or anything like that. The problem, and a serious one indeed, is that there are no claims of notability of it. Being founded three weeks ago, this isn't surprising. But by Wikipedia policy, a page needs to make (and provide third-party reliable sources to support) those claims. The ideas of notability and importance have a specific meaning in this context...when someone says "something isn't important enough for an article", it's almost certainly in reference to WP:NOTABLE, not a personal opinion. DMacks 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the policy on notability and our guildlines on conflicts of interest and neologisms. This article will probably get deleted before anyone even reads this but maybe not. Wikipedia is for something made up in school one day or to promote your new "church". NeoFreak 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The person that wants this artical on the Temple of the FreeSpirit deleted has said to the original poster of this artical:This 'organization' has no importance and does not need or even deserve an article, for many reasons. Get rid of it. // Decaimiento Poético  02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)(and that was said after he replied to her).

The Temple of the FreeSpirit is a new group true,but it deserves to have an artical about it just as much as any other satanic order. and when confronted with being a possible LaVeyan Satanist,the individual stated:"That has nothing to do with my decision and opinions. I suggest you reread my first post and the speedy deletion tag. // Decaimiento Poético  02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)"

And I myself say that has a lot to do with it,because anyone that has anything to do with the prcatice and promotion of the satanic religion knows that both the members of the Church of Satan,and those who are not members but follow their teachings are none for trying to say their defintion/version of Satanism is the only real definiton/version. The person that fist signaled for this articals original deletion when the founder had posted the artical on the Temple of the FreeSpirit had even said"There's no information on the subject whatsoever",and I submit that the First Church of Satan had little information in it's artical,so why should this artical be deleted for said lack of infomation,even in it's present expanded form.

Furthermore why should an artical about a newly founded group be deleted simply because someone outside the group sets themself up as judge,jury and executioner and proclaims that said group has no importance.Her words are right there--->This 'organization' has no importance and does not need or even deserve an article, for many reasons. Get rid of it. // Decaimiento Poético  02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I myself believe and ask that the artical remain on wikipedia. As time goes by and the founder gives me more information to put on the page I will add it,and if you will look you'll notice there is both a yahoo group and a website for the Temple of the FreeSpirit.

I truly suspect that the person complaining that the artical should be deleted and saying so vigorously that the Temple of the FreeSpirit group has no importance is either a member of the Church of Satan,or at the lest follows the writings of Anton LaVey the founder of the Church of Satan,and thats why they are saying the Temple of the FreeSpirit has no importance,and ask that the artical stay on Wikipedia! Sincerly {{Ballcraft))
 * I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. For starters, and just to get it out of the way, I am not a LaVeyan Satanist nor have I ever heard the term in my life, let alone associated with any kind of Satanist church or even another Satanist. I don't feel I need to continue this discussion, as the article has already been deleted. But I do feel the need to either get an administrator to take a look at Tim's account and your's (Ballcraft) or simply call for a checkuser. I have a strong suspicion that you and Tim are one in the same, seeing as how you are both very posssive of the Temple's article and Joseph Perkins' (which has also been deleted). // Decaimiento Poético  15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)