User talk:Fearwig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Satanism

HS Fearwig, honestly do you like the new Satanism article? ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

HS, I hope my latest post helps us all out. Feel free to email me for any info I might be able to give you. ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin

The addition of your sect's (not to use a charged term) philosophy is interesting, but I still have problems with having an addition authored by the founding member of the organization. It's not just the NPOV issue, though that's significant, but also the fact that we have little or no means of determining the actual significance of the organization in terms of followers, et cetera. While I have no beef with minor religions or non-religions, I don't think they should be unduly represented on Wikipedia. When the goal of a project is information, providing information on an (apologies) insignificant organization (whether it is or not is to me uncertain) can give the reader the impression that its role is similar to that of LaVeyan Satanism or another comparatively major movement. I believe that your motives are sound, but I don't think this is the place. My opinion would be changed, of course, if your movement were socially significant, but I don't think I can come to that conclusion when you, as a founder, lay it out on Wikipedia yourself. Do you see where I'm going? Perhaps Everything2 is a better forum for providing information on the Sinagogue of Satan. Fearwig 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

HS, I see where you are going but you're lacking the history. I did not put up the original post, one of my members did, I think it was Marvin Sotello. I did not write the paragraph that was removed that was Bio Wolf. I recieved a post on my message board to see wikipedia and was suprized as hell to see an article on SoS then a few days latter it was gone. This lead to the first revert war. As far as popularity we are very well Known to Freemasons, O.T.O. A:.A:., CoS, T.O.S., CoL, and many other orgs which my members hold duel memberships including CoS. Yes as far the general public were are not widely known but as far as the occult public we are rather famous. In going on 8 years SoS has gained over 4,000 members world wide mostly outside the USA. One member application forced me to look up the country because I thought it was a joke, turns out Ban Dong is western Java. As far as bowling league comment it just points out your personal bias. One other issue I find rather funny is I'm a famous occult poet and I never brought up that fact in all of this. So as far as vanity this has nothing to do with it. Funny this nobody was invited to Stanton Lavey's wedding on the 6th of June, and even funnier the grandson of Anton joined SoS myspace group a month ago, because he likes my religion better than what CoS has become. Yes I am going to LA to Party with Anton's grandson. Gee I'm such a nobody lol ISN 666

Well, I think my reasons for having assumed you might be a nobody are pretty well grounded. This is the internet, and there are plenty of people on it who would do just what you did despite having absolutely no following, so it's hard to spot the difference. If all the things you say are true, then I have no reason to argue about it, as then your organization is certainly of mentionable significance. Fearwig 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

HS, I'm in no hurry to see the paragraph back up and yes I plan to take lots of pictures at Stantons wedding. If you want I'll email you a few when I get back. You might want to do a google on Rev. Michael S. Margolin, not to see how many results but to see how manny things I have my little fingers in. And yeah I'm also running for President in 2008. Also do a google on Sinagogue of Satan, again not to see how many links we are in but to see the diversity of SoS. Your gonna find I, We have tons of support and not all from other Satanists. ISN Me P.S. Thanks for being civil. O and cabhan made a really good essay on my talk page he was extremely helpful in many things including my political agenda.

HS Fearwig, I see FCoS has a paragraph in others now. If you ask John he'll tell you I was one of his members and he was very sorry to lose me. We also out grew FCoS our first year. I have no problem seeing FCoS in wikkipedia at the same time, come on guys if wikki editors are gonna be so openly biased wikkipedia should drop it's non bias claim. ISN 666

[edit] American Revolution

I'm certainly not trying to start an edit war, and you're right, I probably should have dropped you a line first or worked to improve your rewrite, but to tell you the truth, it looked like you hadn't put a whole lot of effort into it:

  • "The American Revolution was also a serious of broad social shifts..."
  • "...but it is said that the American form of this radicalism became uniquely..."
  • "But by its end of the war the climate..."
  • "instead resembled a republican oligarchy of a few dozen gentry" (I agree with this statment, but it seems pretty controversial for the lead graf.
    • I agree, not very encyclopedic.
  • "the American shift to republicanism would come to represent a serious upturn" (awkward)

If you'll rewrite it some, I'll work with you on it. Deal? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's quick and embarrassingly shoddy work, but I think the ideas are a distinct improvement upon what's already there (which wasn't quite correct on grammar and syntax, either). I'll give it some work. And, as I said--of course one should edit what someone else writes, but reverts are awfully curt. And I would love for you and anyone else willing to work on the article--I think this could be a much better piece than it has been, if only it had some attention. Fearwig 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. I think, more than anything, I wasn't ready to deal with the "too controversial for the lead" aspect of it, towards its end. Onward and upward. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:KOMPRESSOR

Actually, removing his name from the comments is against policy, unless you're just doing that with your own comments. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines discusses this more. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Feel free to revert. It's still rather a poor use of Wikipedia to expose a private individual who happens to be an internet 'celebrity', and I will pursue some kind of addition to the rules, with time, for what it's worth. I don't personally care, save for moral reasons, but that should be enough. Fearwig 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you mean this: "Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context. (See MeatBall:ContextSwizzling)." --then you have misunderstood the policy, I think, or else the policy is not inclusive of such a specific case. Prefaces like "as a rule," indicate (to me) that there are justifiable exceptions. I don't see that this has anything to do with what I've done, considering the specific purpose of my edits. If you mean something else, feel free to point it out to me. I've taken this to the help desk to be sure. I want to be clear that I think this is a serious matter, and that I'm not trying to be difficult. Privacy is something a lot of people respect, and (as I said in the strikethrough) being an "internet celebrity" under a pseudonym shouldn't necessarily subject one to scrutiny of his or her personal life. Fearwig 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with you from a normative perspective and, more to the point, from an on-Wiki perspective, for reasons I have explained at length at Talk:KOMPRESSOR. I readily concede that the inclusion of the name may be undesirable for the subject (and, indeed, that he may be harmed by its inclusion), and so I appreciate, I suppose, why you exhibit a certain stridency here, but I simply don't think your sense of how we ought to deal with privacy can successfully be comported with policy. You are, I should say, altogether correct that, if you're not in accord with extant guidelines, you should, where you think the encyclopedia can be improved, surely propose revisions (even as I don't expect that a consensus would develop toward the proposition that we ought to edit other than dispassionately and disinterestedly [at least vis-à-vis the consequences of our editing], see, e.g., the failed Wikipedia:Wikiethics and WP:NOT EVIL). I won't, though, revert if you want once more to redact the name; if others look upon your redaction with disfavor, they'll surely chime in at the talk page. In any event, I certainly agree with your interpretation of "Talk page guidelines", and I don't think your refactoring to have been in contravention of TPG (especially since you made clear what you'd removed and didn't make substantive alterations); nevertheless, I don't think removal is compelled by any relevant policy or guideline, and I think our default assumption ought to be in favor of keeping information. Btw, I'm very glad that you brought the issue up at the help desk and at the article's talk page; such collegiality and willingness to collaborate always makes one happy. Again, feel free to revert me; for my part, I'll leave the talk page alone for now in order that others might take a look... :) Cordially, Joe 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
While I am not in total approval, and while think it would be in Wiki's best interest to protect those on the "borderline" between public and private life (the internet has quite a lot of them, I imagine), a new day has brought a new perspective and I suppose I'll let the matter lie. He is, as I said before, a bit of a twit. *grin* I could foresee WP coming into trouble with the existing policy though, one day in the future. Look, for instance, to the problems Facebook and Myspace are having, not only leading to defamation of the sites but pending (though likely doomed) legislation--and that's because of the voluntary release of personal information by a subject. It's possible that WP might have an advantage here though, simply because it's on trodden ground (i.e. this is the same thing newspapers and gossip rags have done for ages, and it's not "libel" unless it's false, so there may be a degree of safety in it). It's interesting to think about, but I'll stop musing. Thanks for your help, though! Fearwig 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party article

Hello Fearwig. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV tone is a problem, but I can't agree with your disposition (see AfD). Fearwig 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias

I forgot about the size reversal rule. My hispanic friends have been letting me get away with bad grammar again... grr. I need to ask them to be tougher on me & let me know when I mess up. Thanks, Kasreyn 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do it too. I also always tack "a" on between "voy" and (infinitive). I am great at sounding like an ignorant gringo. :) Fearwig 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kweisi Mfume

Hi. I added the "American Freemasons" category to the above page during a mass category depopulation as a faovr to another, overburdoned Wikipedian that is trying to declutter some categories. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I have no affiliation with the masons or really any idea about what they are other than a secret society of some sort. Your reversion made me curuious about finding out more on the topic and Mr. Mfume's involvement (or lack there of), and this Google search may offer some answers. It appears that he is indeed a member of a group called the Prince Hall Freemasons, a group of grand lodges originally founded for African-Americans. I hope this helps. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! As long as it's sourced. Fearwig 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

HS, Prince Hall Masons are not recognized by Scott Rite Masons. Yes they are the african freemasons. If you want Pike wrote on this subject in morals and dogma, I can give you the page numbers if you want them. Their charter was droped, that is the reason they are not recognized. Well the popular reason that is. As far as europe, Masonery is not segragated but as far as America it is. This is changing though in more liberal states such as California. Just trying to help. ISN Rev. MSM

[edit] Funny

Made me laugh, thanks :) [1] 82.29.227.171 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's good--couldn't help myself. Fearwig 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)