User talk:FraterLuciferi

Welcome!

Hello, FraterLuciferi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm Clubjustin. Your recent edit to the page Satanism appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert changes to a page more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.
Assume other editors are here to help as much as is possible.

Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Satanism. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources is on nr 1. Satanism is a religion and not a group of ideological and philosophical beliefs.

If you actually read the source cited at nr 1, it says There are probably dozens of different religious belief systems and practices that have been called "Satanism." I repeat, with emphasis There are probably dozens of different religious belief systemS and practiceS that have been called "Satanism." Ian.thomson (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the source is not valid and must be removed because that's a misunderstanding. The reason why there are different ideological and philosophical beliefs between Satanists is because Satan is described in romans such as Paradise Lost as a liberating figure that promotes individualism, free will and independent thoughts. In the satanic bible it's stated that if LaVey did not created the church of Satan then someone else would have done it. This is not a question about lacking sources but a request to edit the spelling so people can understand Satanism in objective sense. Satanism is one religion and since Satan is described as a liberating figure then there is an accept of diversity between Satanists.

No, it doesn't work that way. You seemed to think the source was completely fine when it supported your view, which means that you're operating with a Confirmation bias.

As has been explained to you before, your personal interpretation of a poem by a Christian and another sect's religious text does not trump professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. You are wasting bandwidth harping on about what you think about the writings of Milton and LaVey.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines represent long-standing consensus among the community. It isn't "anything goes," you are going to have to try to operate within those policies and guidelines if you want to accomplish anything instead of wasting your time. They've already been summarized for you above -- I recommend studying them.

Religious superficially sharing a similar belief does not make those religions the same religion. The LaVeyan Church of Satan believes that there is no real Satan and that the only being any Satanist should worship is his or her material self (and to reject any supernatural and immaterial worls). Joy of Satan ministries regards Satan as an alien freedom-fighter. The Our Lady of Endor Coven regards Satan as a combination of Wicca's Horned God and the Ophitic Nous (liberation from the material world). The Order of Nine Angles treats Satan as a metaphor for Wyrd (fate, the opposite of liberation). While it is possible to reconcile one or two of these together, all four would require rejecting the coherency or earnestness of all of them. The ONA and the Church of Satan dismiss each other by saying the other group aren't real Satanists. The Abrahamic religions are almost identical to each other in comparison to those four views. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All satanic beliefs, practices and organisations shares the same root in the character of Satan and Satanism is therefore one religion. Satanism is best described as a modern free thinking religion in objective sense and that understanding would also lead to co-existence in the satanic community. Wikipedia has a responsibility to promote the right understanding. Your idea of confirmation bias is subjective and useless in this conversation because this is about to promote the right understanding.

No, we don't promote anything, especially "right understanding". People who want to promote "right understanding" are asked to leave. All we do is summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, and they describe those Satanic organizations the way those Satanic organizations describe themselves -- as distinct and separate. As has been explained, superficial commonalities is not enough to say that disparate religions are identical, especially when those groups regard each other as separate and they share no common history. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an objective understanding when we are going to promote information. The satanic groups do shares a common root. It's not academic professionally to start out in article with the statement that Satanism is "a group if ideological and philosophical beliefs" because Satanism is a free thinking religion that makes Satanists able to develop new beliefs, practices and organisations and will forever be in intellectual emotion. Some Satanists are solitary and don't belongs to a group at all.

When you are ready to edit within the site's policies and guidelines, instead of treating your personal idealism as an undeniable divine mandate, welcome to the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to promote correct information in objective ways. Satanism is a free thinking religion and that's a objective fact independent of what I think. I'm not interested to edit wikipedia but rather that wikipedia would edit it for me because the admins are educated to use this site. I give sources to my claims and my conclusion is that free thinking religion is the best description of Satanism.

Hello, I'm MorbidEntree. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Satanism has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 16:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satanism is best described as a free thinking religion or a group of new religious movements and that's why I edited it. http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm

Try to get consensus at Talk:Satanism before making changes to the introduction, and be aware that any silence does not imply consent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]