Hello, Barfbag666, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lucien Greaves has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Satanic Temple and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lucien Greaves requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. noq (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use your sandbox to draft an article about Doug Mesner. You can invite people to help you if you wish. Once it passes muster, you can page-move it to our article space (do not copy and paste it if others have helped write it - as their contributions must be acknowledged, and a page-move does that). You can then create a page redirect for Lucien Greaves so people using that search term can find the correct article. See WP:BIO for information about how to write a good biographical article. Rklawton (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your civil note above is a little more what i'd like to see on this site rather claiming some kind of personal agenda. This cite rather lacks quite a bit of content on Atheistic-Satanism and this is an obvious attempt to add information, views, history, and customs. That was the first time (i can recall) that i made an actual page from scratch. I may have made one for a event called "SOAK" and it didn't get a backlash so... this appeared strange getting such a discouraging backlash. I think I'll use his pseudonym similar to "Mr.T"^[1] (citing his real name in the article similarly). His claim to fame is the co founding of the Satanic Temple and my understanding his intended to use said pseudonym. The problem with not having the page live is i don't know who really wants to edit on it with me. We have a few thousand people in facebook groups but i'm not going to ask each one but rather "here it is". I don't know if the "invite" vs. having it live is quicker or would produce a lesser quality page.Barfbag666 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack when I note that you have a personal agenda. It's a fact. You are here for promotional purposes, and that puts you at odds with most of the editors here. Your best bet is to acknowledge it and ask for help rather than get mad and act in an uncivil manner. As noted before, you should read up on WP:BIO. You should also read up on WP:COI as you're going to find that's a rather touchy topic for us. Rklawton (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment technically would be true however, as I've noted Satanism (in particular Atheistic Satanism), Satanic leaders, Satanic culture, and Satanic organizations are grossly under represented on Wiki. Yes, i obviously know a little more about Satanism and some of these historic events than many; that's the intent is to add and document said history and in the appropriate spots. Satanists have masses (Black have been very news worthy) and belong in a wiki with other religions. Due to the nature of Satanism and many Christian advisories, i'm sure there's many people who will attack being discussed on the same page however they're similar rituals thus relevant. The Fred Phelps incident was highly talked about and an entire campaign with website dedicated just to that event and continuing to perform said "PINK MASSES" at he and his mothers graves^[2]. It obviously belongs in his wiki similar to the motorcycle anti protests and legislation to counter his and the WBC causes. What you did was in some kind of irrelevant authority argument (that's not an insult but rather a logical fallacy decided to simply omit them vs. improve the article. Perhaps that's the norm; censor credible and interesting information one doesn't like until enough people fight back. Since you personally went and decided to look at my edits and track them, I'd argue that you have an obvious personal agenda to censorship those causes. That's actually a challenge of Atheistic Satanism; people would rather not see it discussed. It's almost like when it is the "boogie man" doesn't look so bad. If you noticed i backed all of my info with credible sources. However, I'll treat your obvious targeting as a "you could write it better". I'll also use this as a learning tool of proper Wiki tags and markup. So... thank you for helping me, help my "agenda", through learning how to better use Wikipedia via said resistance. So maybe that was your round about intentBarfbag666 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is to see Wikipedia improved. The two edits I reverted were not improvements. One hopes the advice I have given you may result in future improvements. That is my agenda. Rklawton (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, both postings were relevant and add value however could have been done better. Masses are in Satanic Culture thus relevant (Black, Pink, etc). It was in line with the article. Since other more "dominant" religions historically attempt to oppress Satanic practices and views i'm sure one could get 1,000,000 people saying it doesn't and will sensor it, but that is just highly subjective censorship similar to the September_11_attacks article stating something like "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." When there's been peer reviewed papers that are highly credible citing otherwise^[3]. That partiulcar one is an embarrassment of wiki as a whole and No_true_Scotsman behavior has no place on Wikipedia when a 6 year old can test the "conspiracy theory" basis using a marble, stop watch, and basic physics. Said behavior weakens the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. The event on Fred is highly relevant but could have been integrated better. We'll come back to that one once other sites are created showing the strength of said placement. What i did was place little 'zingers' without having much info on the organizations and groups behind them to further research. The later being much more time consuming to do. Barfbag666 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Rklawton. 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. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted once. It's neither edit-warring nor harassment. Make your case on the article talkpage, politely. However, based on your edits, you appear to be using Wikipedia to push an agenda. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your edits in more detail, I've reverted them. You're using the article to make a statement. Please don't do that. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign comments you leave on my talk page. Also, if you're going to template me for edit warring (not an appropriate template - nor appropriate to template an administrator in this manner) - then you should follow through with the report on the edit warring page so that others can evaluate the situation. As it stands, it appears your intent is simply to harass me and push your agenda. That's not going to fly here. Rklawton (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously still learning how to use the format/etiquette on wiki. I've read a lot of articles however not written a lot. Rklawton plowing through my submissions not only deters my addition of obviously very misrepresented content (Satanism articles are currently very poorly populated). Rather than outright deleting my contributions feel free to improve on them. The notes on Fred Phelps was quite neutral; it just stated what happened during a "Pink Mass" / somewhat a counter protest. Barfbag666 (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're spamming a protest event in an encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that you can't contribute, but it does mean that you can't just add things in that obviously don't belong, or are of no importance in a biography. The article's about Fred, not about the protest. As for etiquette, spamming is frowned upon, and collaboration is encouraged. You need to gain a consensus among other editors that your changes or additions are appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think about the Phelps issue logically. If a thousand different groups "did things" to Phelps after he died, his article would consist of 1000 sections all consisting of stuff that he did not himself participate in. This information, if notable/significant/reliable sourced, would be better suited to an article about the person or group targeting Phelps rather than Phelps' own article. On an unrelated note and one that has nothing to do with article editing, it's my understanding that the Satanic Temple specifically rejected the supernatural - thereby rendering any pink mass a farce. But I could be mistaken. Rklawton (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall (and it mentioned it in Phelps article) there were counter protests by groups such as the Patriot Riders during his lifetime. That was briefly noted and had airtime (arguably less interesting). This event hit the news countrywide and not just a few people picketing ^[1]. It was another very organization that did a rather notable protest in a very clever way. It was also done as the man was in his DEATH BED (still alive if i recall). Kind of "screw you on your way out" responding to his lifetime of hate passing. That was rather eventful, novel, and historical. It also has implications on gay rights activism and fight back that was building over the last couple years. It's also one of the TST's earlier notable causes and if you haven't turned on the news, they're doing some pretty big things these days:

^{[2] [3]}

I'm putting similar back in but may want help figuring out the "proper" way now that you may know how big that event was. That wasn't just a tiny below the line event against Phelps (particularly his mother).

^[4]

Barfbag666 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that the event received significant (national) press coverage, then you might consider proposing your edit in the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"national" is redundant in your claim. With the internet that is kind of irrelevant. However....^[5]. New York Times is usually decent.^[6]. The new york times even refereneced the Westboro-Baptists site^[7] Can you see why i was a little ticked off by an arbitrary removal of such an event? Barfbag666 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Barfbag666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My name is completely acceptable "BarfBag" Aka [Sickness_bag] (wiki on it) is not a "Username that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities or referencing controversies" nor is the number "666" offensive as it has roots in my religion which if someone is offended by that's not something Wikipedia needs to penalize me for. I suspect someone is targeting me due to recent disputes and my being more active in specific religious entries and trying to censor my speech. I wouldn't flag someone for a username like "GODISLOVE" or the like however would make me feel a "Username that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities or referencing controversies"

Decline reason:

Usernames exist to identify users, not to prove a point. The issue is whether usernames are likely to offend other users, not to argue the toss as to whether they should. The Anome (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Support block I'd say that user name, pattern of incivility, and article edit history are all indicative of trolling. For example, adding references to Satanic Masses to an article on Christian Masses rather than Black Masses is really rather blatant. However, I'd rather tackle each issue separately. In this case, this editor's efforts so far support the notion that the user name is intended to be either trolling and/or offensive - and if not intended overtly - at least shows a significant lack of regard for other editors. Rklawton (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for you "opinion". This probably belongs on that particular page but i'll write it here and copy/paste later. This simply shows ignorance of the topics i'm writing on and doesn't support intended offensive trolling. The page you mentioned right now only includes "Christian Mass" discretion however based on the title Satanic Masses also belong with appropriate detail. Other religions appear to have their individual mass pages such as Mass_(Catholic_Church) however on the generic Mass_(liturgy) page it should be generic to any religion that has mass type "events". That isn't a "Christian" mass page; it is to be generic. I didn't post on the Mass_(Catholic_Church) page however placing a note on it's similarities to "Satanic Masses" would be reasonable on that page as well and visa versa. It doesn't include that Satanic Masses exist and belong represented on said page. Under the Satanic Mass section on Mass_(liturgy) it should discuss various Satanic Masses then have a link to individual mass types such as a Black Mass (or Pink Mass) similar to the existing links on the site. Further it continues support you're obviously trolling my personal account and taking initiative to do so and should be disciplined for doing such. I can change my name to a similar "SATANLOVESGAYMEN666" or similar. Would that be offensive? I'd claim no. So what is the attempt being made here? To prove a point and harass? You fired the first aggressive shot a day or two ago by deleting my valid additions. I'm saving this log just in case my account is blocked/banned. A lot of changes are going to occur via this Satanism Wikiproject project and rightfully so. You're pointing out a "pattern" that is true. Satanism is censored or heavily uncovered on Wikipedia. Most places you see other current religion views, Satanic views need to be included proportionally as it is a valid recognized religion and we're creating said lists. Writing about Satanism on religious based pages is not trolling. If people reading the article don't like it and think it's trolling, that doesn't give them the right to censor.Barfbag666 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • So let's break these two issues out separately: change your username first, then we can talk about the merits of your edits. Unless you are an emetophile, "barfbag" creates an inherently unpleasant image, and does not help to create an atmosphere of civility. Regarding mentioning Satan in your new proposed username: regardless of the merits or otherwise of Satanism, that will offend others, and you should not do so to try to prove a point. Wikipedia isn't Reddit, and your username here should not be provocative. -- The Anome (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Regarding your proposed new user name - taking on Fred Phelps', a modern symbol of hatred and intolerance, view of gay men isn't going to garner you any points, either. Your persistence in being inflammatory is indicative of a "troll" or "disruptive" account and will very likely result in your editing privileges being indefinitely revoked. That is to say, it's becoming increasingly clear that you are here for no legitimate purpose (constructively editing an encyclopedia). Rklawton (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rklawton Your supporting proving my point about your bias. "SATANLOVESGAYMEN" was being used as an example of where I personally finding that as a complement as I also love Satan while others may see it as an insult. Others seeing that as an insult is their right. I could put "HAILSATAN666" as my username and i'm sure you'd probably say that's offensive too whereas I'd say that's kind of a religious motto and greeting. What part of that (SATANLOVESGAYMEN) is "offensive"? If you don't like that or interpret it a different way, you're welcome to do so. That is kind of one of the important aspects of Satanism. The word "Satan" can go anywhere that "GOD" can and shouldn't have a different reaction and if it does... not my problem. Your note and whole argument, and actions against me are outright fallacious and simply trying to use everything i say in a manipulative and out of context manner. As with the Fred Phelps article, placing that particular addition to his wiki was showing counter resistance to his viewpoints of hate. So yeah, I'll be sure to see about how i challenge this further. You don't really belong on this site as an admin if you can't see what you're doing or at least should not be reviewing any article or addition having to do with religion and in particular Satanism. Take your Satanic_panic elsewher. Calling my views "trolling" is designed as an insult to my character and opinions and simply false. I'm not here to necessarily go along with popular views nor be censored. If I do something that is vandalism, yes i agree it does need to be corrected. I did no such thing and maybe, maybe my reaction was a little overboard however yes i am new at making a lot of edits and never had such blatant and targeted censorship occur on here before. What you did was outright biased censorship based on your lack of understanding of subjects that you obviously don't have any business of editing or should maybe check the legitimacy before hand. What you're basically saying is my religious tenants^[8] have no place on wikipedia such as " 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 your own.". In my postings i did not make a single attack but rather placed factual additions with references. Now you're obviously spearheading an aggressive attack trying to also go after my username i've been using for quite some time. "Disruptive"... Really... because history and text about history isn't going to be a little disruptive. If articles have mass bias, need mass overhaul, and so on and that qualifies as "disruptive" yes, i do plan on being disruptive. However, i am learning a little more about how to use Wiki Syntax and the proper places to put arguments. Yeah right, you're not being biased nor making an attack..... right. Do you want to poke me in the right direction for further petition and complaint? You'r basically having me admit i must be submissive to you who i obviously don't have much respect for and rightfully so based on your actions and displayed ignorance. I guess i should appeal to other members of my religion and church to make arguments and complain on my behalf against this action.Barfbag666 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rklawton By the way, why do you have a wikipedia article? You don't exactly all that significant per wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance?Barfbag666 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oops per the above. It's just a user article and doesn't appear to be indexed by google. I'm still learning how to use the site. Although my points above stand.Barfbag666 (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring up the subject of your user name. Another administrator decided it was problematic. I agreed. As for your proposed new user name, it demonstrates 1) that you're editing with a significant conflict of interest, and 2) it's a name Fred Phelps would have supported, a fact which I merely found ironic. I spearhead nothing. I have over a decade of experience here. My opinions are my own, but they are based on experience. If other people agree with my views, they do it through their own initiative. That's how Wikipedia works. That's also why negativity such as yours is not appreciated and will likely result in the loss of editing privileges regardless of your user name. Rklawton (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's been question over whether or not you're the same person that has posted under the usernames HAILXSATANX666 and ILOVESATAN666. I'm aware that you're currently blocked, but I did want to let you know about this. There is a thread currently running at ANI and if you are the same person as either of the other two accounts, this will impact how things play out. What I've done is open up an investigation here about this. If you're not the same person then this will show that - if you are, then that will make a pretty huge impact on things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barfbag666 -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]