Dominiusol

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, I see you are brand new here and have only created an account to attack me and delete my edits. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, on the articles in question we've had detailed discussion about how to word things and what to include or not include. If you disagree with our decisions please address them on the talk page, however since you've already used the talk page to personally attack other users I suspect this is a sockpuppet account and you don't you have anything useful to add. Seanbonner (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I assumed the same of you, then I checked your Twitter and -- wouldn't you know it? -- you regularly retweet the Church of Satan! You're obviously not a neutral editor on this topic, as evidenced by your inclusion of the absurd "actor" claim on the Lucien Greaves page, and your apparent selective inability to discern credible citation.Dominiusol (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to The Satanic Temple, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Satanic Temple

Don't remove sources and content without a good reason to do so in the wp:edit summary. Also, avoid adding wp:original research. Jim1138 (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Jim1138 . This page has a real problem with vandalism, particularly from an editor named Seanbonner who is trying to use the page to litigate the religious authenticity of The Satanic Temple. He has gone so far as to repeatedly delete a line that states that The Satanic Temple is a "religious Satanic organization", a fact that is indisputable, as this is how the organization is actually filed in its incorporation. I hope there can be some monitoring of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiusol (talk • contribs) Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Satanic Temple. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a parody

It's listed under category:Religious parodies and satires. And, yes, they did organize as a religion. Why not if you get a nice tax exemption? Also, see Church of the SubGenius and Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Jim1138 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

They have always maintained that they USE satire but that as a religion, they view themselves as authentic. Wikipedia is not the place to litigate that, and I do not see how "religious Satanic organization" can possibly be disputed?Dominiusol (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Satanic Temple. Jim1138 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that I need to source the claim that The Satanic Temple is a religious Satanic organization?Dominiusol (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And to indicate the significance as to why that statement belongs in the lede. Jim1138 (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. The significance is, I think, self-evident. That's first and foremost what they are. How would one source the significance of the claim that Tom Cruise being identified as an actor belongs in the lede?Dominiusol (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your source did not support your claim. Discuss on talk:The Satanic Temple See wp:BRD Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't ask the Tom Cruise question to be rhetorical. I genuinely want to know. How do you source something that's so generally known that it's universally accepted, except by an editor here?Dominiusol (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You might think it is universally accepted. A flat Earth and that god(s) create lightning, thunder, etc. was also universally accepted. Having read about the Satanic Temple, I believe it is a religious parody. Perhaps those who believe it is not haven't done any research? Try Googling "Satanic Temple parody". Jim1138 (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)