User talk:Heathenguy

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Heathenguy! Thank you for your contributions. I am KennethSides and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

KennethSides (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Odin Brotherhood

Please consult Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Odin Brotherhood.

I do not doubt that there are groups now which call themselves The Odin Brotherhood. Of course, being secret, they are unaware of one another, and there is no telling how many of them there are. But Wikipedia has a thing called WP:V, "verifiability". What is verifiable here is that Mirabello wrote a book in 2003. We have discussed this at length in 2006, and it turned out that this book does not have sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. If you want to argue that the situation has changed in the meantime, perhaps because there is now substantial secondary literature on Mirabello's claims, you should make the suggestion at WP:DRV, and above all, present evidence that this is indeed the case. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

A book was written in 1992 (not 2003) that has gone through five editions. The Odin Botherhood itself is also mentioned in secondary literature and its forum is nearing 1000 members. Its material appears in five languages.

The forum may be accessed vis this site --Heathenguy (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Odin Brotherhood article can be editted to restore the content if you can justify it, it is possible to use the history, seelct an older version, click edit and then save it. More references to show this is not something you made up yourself are always good. The nature of the dearlier deleting admin is not really an issue here as it was a consensus decision. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Odin Brotherhood (2)

Please don't revert people's changes because they were made "without discussion". Anyone can change articles at any time using reliable sources, which is what I did. Back in April you made several changes to the articlecombined diff of the changes, and you didn't need to make any "discussion", didn't you? Nobody reverted all of your edits just because you didn't discuss every edit in the talk page.

I made several edits, and you can see which sources I used on each edit, and why. I have tried to edit the article with an open mind, and confine myself to what I can find in reliable sources. If you think that some of the material doesn't reflect the sources, then point out the exact problems in the talk page, and explain why the sources don't support the material. If you think that the focus should be in the group and not in Mirabello's book, then find material about the group that doesn't rest 100% on Mirabello's book. (I am hoping that "Jack Wolf from Canada" turns out to have a background of reputable researching of paganism and other cultural stuff)

If you have a conflict of interest with Mirabello or with the group, you should disclose it. If you are associated with Mirabello, or a member of the group, then you should read the advice for people with close relationships to the subject of an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What to do after a revert is a discussion. The essay on this is WP:BRD. And the best place for a discussion is really on the talk:The Odin Brotherhood page. For this sort of thing primary sources are OK. So if the Mirabello's book has content you can use that as a reference too. What should not be there is information from your own experience. You can also ask at WP:3O for a third independent opinion but your best chances for input are from the people that edited the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Awareness Network

The Cult Awareness Network was monitoring the Odin Brotherhood. The Cult Awareness Network has now been effectively taken over by Scientology.

Cult Awareness Network

May 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Odin Brotherhood, you may be blocked from editing.

In Odin Brotherhood you have been adding content with promotional tones, inflating the article with fluff, and trying to remove, downtone or misrepresent the lack of evidence for the existence of the group. You later exported that behaviour to Odinism##The_Odin_Brotherhood. And you have reverted back to versions with promotional tones in 2 September 2012, 5-10 September 2012 (not an actual revert, but had the same effect, and you undid two attempts to remove the bias that you were introducing [1][2]), 07:26, 17 September 2012‎, 02:25, 29 January 2013, 03:31, 30 January 2013, 19:10, 1 February 2013. Despite your claims, there is still no evidence that the modern internet group is not completely based off Mirabello's book. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing uncritical and biased advertising. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the repeated misrepresentations of Harvey's source, and the the debacle with Melton's 7th edition, I can no longer trust your interpretation of sources. I won't believe your claims about Melton's 8th edition until you can send me a scan of the relevant page or pages (or a screenshot, if you are reading the book online). You can send them to this email address justanaccount123123@yahoo.com --Enric Naval (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can buy the book at amazon.com. I do not scan material and send it to strangers. If nothing else, I fear you may use my e-mail to work mischief. --Heathenguy (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may buy the book here. I paid for my copy, so try fostering real scholarship by buying a copy.

http://www.amazon.com/Meltons-Encyclopedia-American-Religions-Gordon/dp/078769696X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367561966&sr=8-1&keywords=melton%27s+encyclopedia+of+american+religions

--Heathenguy (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cheapest copy costs $300 (the cheaper ones are for older editions, apparently?), this is a bit too expensive just to check one page. And I think it's available for free in any public library in UK and US? I am sorry, but "fostering real scholarship" sounds like a poor excuse to avoid verifications of the source.

As for "you may use my e-mail to work mischief", I recommend you to register a throw-away account in mail.yahoo.com.

Meanwhile, I you make a wholesome reversion again, I'll ask that you are blocked for misrepresentation of sources, non-neutral edits and edit warring to remove the corrections to your work. I remind you again that wikipedia is not a promotional billboard for organizations. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Naval, your edits on this subject are in no way neutral. You keep referring to one statement made by one person 20 years ago. If Mr. Harvey had bothered to dig deeper, As Mr. Mirabello and Mr. Wolf had done, he would have discovered his error.

I have no idea why you have some sort of relentless hostility to the subject at hand. Perhaps if you actually read the works in question, it would help.

Cheers.

--Heathenguy (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reported your edit-warring Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Heathenguy_reported_by_User:Enric_Naval_.28Result:_.29. And I'll suggest that you stop your personal attacks, in reference to your comments of "religious hatred", "read the books you are attacking" or "relentless hostility". I am only trying to represent faithfully what sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Holtj (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mike V • Talk 20:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]