Template talk:LaVeyan Satanism sidebar

I hope I did the colors right... I mean, Satanism subject deserves its dark colors but I am not sure how well it goes with the wikipedia color theme =\. Insights will be appreciated. --Vitalyb 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up the template just a little, scaling down the font sizes and adding a picture for the header: Image:Pentagram with one point down (de Guaita).jpg. I couldn't find a better image though, but I believe this one will do. --...Wikiwøw 15:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But for some reason, it has messed up all the articles with the template. For now, I've reverted it, but the template should still be fixed. Not that it matters much, but the template itself is quite ugly and doesn't fit with any proper format. --...Wikiwøw 15:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism

How can you link Objectivism with Satanism? This is absurd!!--Arado 13:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Anton LeVey did. And that's reason enough. -- LGagnon 13:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that it is. Just because one branch of Satanism was inspired by one branch of Objectivism? If your goal is to be complete about linking anything remotely related to any branch of Satanism in this template, there are other things to worry about than Objectivism. Christianity has had much more of an influence on Satanism than Objectivism has, I'm sure you would agree. samrolken 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Majority

What does the Moral Majority have to do with Satanism? The link is not made clear in the Moral Majority or Satanism articlse. --SigPig\^{SEND - OVER} 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like vandalism. I think its funny, so I'm certainly not going to change it. 72.64.136.52 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just did (my opinion of the Moral Majority notwithstanding). -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Satanic Scriptures

I've added The Satanic Scriptures into the template, as well as having created an article for the book. I hope this is acceptable. Darkahn 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems the book's article might be deleted (even though it'd only be so for, at longest, a month or two), perhaps it should be removed incase of deletion until the article is created (again). Darkahn 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinagogue of Satan

Since I and the Sinagogue of Satan are two different things how is it a personal plug? The banner is Biased and so was your edit.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most more then likely removed because it was a personal plug, in the form of you being the founder of this Sinagogue. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{//The Forest Whispers My Name//} 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm the founder does not make it a personal plug. If I was to put my name up there with Peggy and the rest that would be a personal plug and I'll be sure to let someone else do that.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the second part, but unfortunately most people here would deem what you're doing as advertising - or they would say the Sinagogue isn't notable enough for a place on the template or a major mention. I'm not an expert on your brand admittedly, so I can't say how popular it is (the first I heard of it was by chance clicking on your User Page a while ago). Although it's position on the template is a dubious one, one thing I would be in favour of is an article on the Religion. Unfortunately, the article was deleted and protected to prevent re-creation - which now leaves the problem that the link on the template (or the one that you are proposing be added) is a dead one, leading to an article which no longer exists. Tell me, what were the reasons for the article being deleted in the first place? ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{//The Forest Whispers My Name//} 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They used the Notability excuse but only used search results not real books and tv shows that are on my user page. My action is based on, the only Satanism displayed in the Banner is Church of Satan and Karla LaVey, the same people that keep me out tried to keep her out and failed in mediation. My claim is the banner is biased and exploits wikipedia to advertize for the Church of satan and begrudgingly Karla Lavey. Note: Stanton tells me wiki still does not accept him as a prominent figure for the same reasons they refused Karla, not wiki the editors that gained the monopoly on the article. The Banner is biased and should reflect more groups and people than the Church of Satan and Karla Lavey. By the way three is the charm right?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see WP:3RR. Anyway, if you believe the article to be biased, go ahead and edit it. However, the Wikipedia community has unfortunately deemed your "Sinagogue" as un-notable, and if it is not really worthy of an article, the unfortunately it cannot be expected to be on this template. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{//The Forest Whispers My Name//} 01:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to change that? Being, facts were ignored and some editors had and still have an agenda to monopolize the Satanism article to only reflect the Chusrch of Satan and again Begrudgingly Karla LaVey. As you can see someone edited out some of my info but I put it back in. I question why they removed valid information from a user page.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to change the deleted status of your article, then I would suggest doing it here. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{//The Forest Whispers My Name//} 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you haunted I posted on the discussion page.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to keep up with current changes?

Should the template be revised overall? Link to the different Satanism articles and the articles of organizations that are now covered in Wiki? WerewolfSatanist 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think there needs to be a template soley for actual Satanism as defined by LaVey, and then one "encompassing" things that claim to be Satanism and/or accusations of it, and then perhaps if the devil-worshippers can offer anything more than external links or articles deleted in a day, a template for what they call Satanism as well. This would help to avoid any further debates over what is "Satanic" and what is not, since that seems to be primarily what they thrive on. Darkahn 08:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic flag????

What's with the "Satanic" flag in the Satanism box?

As far as anyone knows this pseudo-Satanic flag has absolutely nothing to do with Satanism.

Does anybody care to explain why this flag was put up in the first place and what its (doubtful) association to Satanism might be?

Lex Talionis as an associated concept!

I don't know why "Lex Talionis" was taken out. It is very much a related concept. Lex talionis is "the Law of Retaliation" or as LaVey said, "If a man smite you on one cheek, smash him on the other." WerewolfSatanist 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Organization?

Associated Organizations: The Church Of Satan

WTF?

The Church Of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor LaVey, has nothing to do with Karla LaVey's ripoff. These two "Churches" are anything but associated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.187.187 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]