Tonymike17
Tonymike17, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Tonymike17! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC) |
2021 Dear Doug,
I suppose this will be our second go'round. My recent addition of a Criticism section to the Great Replacement was removed, if you happened to check the history(?...which I'm sure you haven't, based on my past experience with you), by an anonymous source. I also posted my intent in the discussion section of the thread. So, please, do tell...what's the problem now? Do you simply title everyone as a "disruptive editor?" I don't often edit , but please be guaranteed that a significant amount of thought was put forth. So, is this scolding another mistake, like the previous one noted below last year when you were also mistaken then? Appreciate your feedback and looking forward to another exchange...
Thanks, Tony
2020
Dear Doug,
I am responding regarding a baseless decision to revert the edit that I made below...
Christian mythology is the body of myths associated with Christianity and Satanism. The term encompasses a broad variety of legends and stories, especially those considered sacred narratives. Mythological themes and elements occur throughout Christian literature, including recurring myths such as ascending to a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the Underworld, accounts of a dying-and-rising god, flood stories, stories about the founding of a tribe or city, and myths about great heroes (or saints) of the past, paradises, and self-sacrifice." The alert that I received contained the following two comments:
At 17:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC), I received a message stating, "Hello, I'm Nyook. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Christian mythology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Nyook". At, 18:05, 11 July 2020, you responded, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian mythology, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk." To begin, I would first direct attention the quote by user Nyook. The premise for Nyook's decision to remove and archive my edit is that "[I] didn't provide a reliable source." My first objection is that I did include a "reliable source;" I cited the reference that I used for "Satanism," which was a direct link to Satanism. Historically, the source of Satan (Satan) and Christ (Jesus) is the Bible. These are facts, indisputable, according to the full extant pages currently denoted on Wikipedia (as sourced hyperlinks, aforementioned). For example, under the definition section of Satanism, third paragraph, is the following paragraph that reads,
"In 1994, the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne suggested defining Satanism with the simultaneous presence of "1) the worship of the character identified with the name of Satan or Lucifer in the Bible, 2) by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy, 3) through ritual or liturgical practices." The definition applies regardless the way in which "each group perceives Satan, as personal or impersonal, real or symbolical.[9]"
Unless I'm completely missing something, this is a reliable source, by definition. Are you and Nyook suggesting this citation is unreliable? Or do you think it's possible a couple of individuals failed miserably to actually read the content that was sourced and cited as reference? Or maybe there was simply bias and prejudice involved in the general decision to revert my edit?
Additionally, see the section "Etymology" in the Wikipedia entry for "Satanism" for additional source citations. Moreover, the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom" continues at length ad banality, as pertains to instance a "Devil Worship.". Thus, it appears, as noted above, that Satan and Christianity are wedded ad infinitum. Here it must be noted that even in the entry Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism is also referenced, even if a demarcation is attempted to be drawn to distinguish between various denominations of "Satanism. As noted on Satanism page, under the section "Medieval and Early Modern Christendom," where it states, "The Knights Templar were accused of worshipping an idol known as Baphomet, with Lucifer having appeared at their meetings in the form of a cat.[33]", The Satanic Temple also uses the symbol of Baphomet. According to Massimo Introvigne, whether "The Satanic Temple", "LaVeyan Satanism", "Church of Satan", or other fringe cultists or occultists, these institutions meet the definition: "by organized groups with at least a minimal organization and hierarchy." Furthermore, as example, the following seven "Fundamental Tenets" of the The Satanic Temple constitute "ritual" and "liturgical practices":
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. Here it is noted that the about us section of the website (https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us) denotes the conflict between "The Satanic Temple" and "Church of Satan" as follows...
"The Church of Satan expresses vehement opposition to the campaigns and activities of The Satanic Temple, asserting themselves as the only “true” arbiters of Satanism, while The Satanic Temple dismisses the Church of Satan as irrelevant and inactive."
Under the section "Antagonism towards Satanism" on the Satanism page, the following is quoted at length...
"Another contributing factor to the idea of Satanism is the concept that there is an agent of misfortune and evil who operates on a cosmic scale,[22] something usually associated with a strong form of ethical dualism that divides the world clearly into forces of good and forces of evil.[23] The earliest such entity known is Angra Mainyu, a figure that appears in the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.[24] This concept was also embraced by Judaism and early Christianity, and although it was soon marginalized within Jewish thought, it gained increasing importance within early Christian understandings of the cosmos.[25] While the early Christian idea of the Devil was not well developed, it gradually adapted and expanded through the creation of folklore, art, theological treatises, and morality tales, thus providing the character with a range of extra-Biblical associations.[26]
Based on this, it's utterly not poppycock to suggest that existential crisis of handfuls of individuals, whether organized or disorganized, are currently under way to ensure the ideology of "the Devil" is "well developed."
If Wikipedia citation can be self-referential, where one page (e.g. Christian mythology) references another page (e.g. Christianity), then it necessarily follows that mutual correlations, even if underdeveloped (e.g. Satanism, must also be referenced and cited, good sir! Otherwise, you risk general rot of intellectual integrity. However these Satanic denominations differ from their Christian counterparts is for neither you nor I to determine! And THAT is truly a page that is not written: please try a Google search (or any) as pertains to "differences between Christianity and Satanism Wikipedia."
I look forward to receiving our response.
Best regards, Tony O'Connor
https://www.history.com/topics/1960s/satanism#section_4
@Tonymike17: this sort of discussion belongs on the article's talk page so that others can take part. User:Nyook hasn't been around for a month so may not respond. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC) @Doug Weller:, It appears you're deflecting and not addressing my argument, justification, and response. You're the individual who also said, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian mythology, you may be blocked from editing." Your response is underdeveloped and unacceptable. Please address my comments. See my Twitter blast: https://twitter.com/TonyOConnor_/status/1328627702912397312?s=20.
I plan to edit the reference again and this entire section can be added, there, as you suggest. If I can anticipate discourse similar to your redress, what literally is the issue? Are you the sole arbiter of intellectual discourse on Wikipedia? Did you even read what I wrote?
Regards,
Tony
July 2020
edit
Hello, I'm Nyook. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Christian mythology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Nyook ✉ 17:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian mythology, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
April 2021
edit Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Great Replacement have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Great Replacement was changed by Tonymike17 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.900079 on 2021-04-10T18:54:59+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)April 2021 2
edit
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Doug Weller. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —PaleoNeonate – 02:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
How to sign talk page posts
edit Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.