User talk:Wotanswarriors

Help me!

Please help me with... how do I add an organization to the group of Germanic Neopagan organizations? Thank you.

Wotanswarriors (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Example of a page that is already in this group? Gryllida (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida, Thank you for your answer. I am very new here so I am hopefully doing this right. Here is an example of a page that would be in the same category. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odinist_Fellowship

And which page you want to add in this category? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cosmic Ostara

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cosmic Ostara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not 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.

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 deleted 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. Saqib (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your addition to Odinia International has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Natureium (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi. Firstly, this is not a copyright violation. _please see below) I think whoever made the latest edit, which contains libel, should be warned, not me. The original entry libeled the organization in question, even after being told that it was libel, and they did that twice. The original entry made was an obviously biased entry, which mentions nothing but negative personal opinions from only one side, leaving out substantial information, which speaks to notability, and actually gives relevant information about the site and org, entirely. The original entry maker states that Odinia International is a Nazi or National Socialist organization, but it is a religious organization with no political affiliation. Calling it a Nazi website therefore is libel. I removed the libel. The person who just removed my extremely scholarly unbiased post put the libel back in. Any material that I presented that was not written by me was used with permission and was encyclopedic in nature already and can be seen on the metapedia entry for Odinia International , which is an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and on the main side odinia.org as well . I invite you to contact the page owner and verify that I have permission if you like. I state categorically that I have permission. (Wotanswarriors (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)). I am user User: Wotanswarriors .

Metapedia "is an electronic encyclopedia which contains authoritarian far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and neo-Nazi points of view." according to sources - it's nothing like Wikipedia which is a real encyclopedia. In any case, we can't take anyone's word for it that they have permission. We wouldn't use material copied from Odinia.org, not just because it says "Anything in favor of facts, European rather than Semitic religion, and free speech, or against White genocide, is “hate” according to Jewish supremacist controlled ZOG-Goggle." but because unlike Metapedia, Wikipedia articles are meant to be mainly based on what reliably published mainstream sources say about an organisation. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear talk Thank you for your message. You are, in a sense, quoting your own source, since that is Wikipedia's statement about Metapedia. Metapedia may be considered far right, but most certainly Wikipedia is generally considered to be far left. I do not know about you, but I am not so squeamish that I do not mind finding useful facts in sources I do not agree with otherwise. I am merely interested in doing accurate research.

This being an online encyclopedia I tried to present an unbiased view in the middle with actual informative substantive facts in it, and also not to libel any organization as you are either doing or condoning by presenting this organization, Odinia International, as a Neo Nazi organization or agreeing that it be presented as such, when it has been stated very clearly, publicly, that it is a religious organization with no political affiliation. National socialism is a political movement. Odinia International is, I am told reliably, not affiliated with any National Socialist group, or any political group at all, therefore it is not a Neo Nazi group. I would have to double check but I believe that was mentioned in this broadcast. https://soundcloud.com/lonewolfradio/episode-4-seana-fenner

If you are basing whether or not you would use or report information upon any significant organization, and this is a significant organization, on your personal dislike of a religious belief, political leaning, or historical view, you are not being unbiased. Wikipedia bills itself as being an encyclopedia, which implies that it actually is unbiased. In order to be so, it would be necessary to "give the devil his due" whether you approve of or like an organization and its views or not.

For example, you, or I, may not agree with the opinion expressed in the statement you quoted, but the fact is that there is massive censorship on Google in the EU and this is a fact that should be reported accurately in an unbiased fashion. If a person or political group whose views you do not agree with does significant work on a subject, and there has been significant scholarly work done on Odinism by this organization, than that needs to be honestly acknowledged in an unbiased encyclopedia as well. Otherwise, Wikipedia is merely doing a shallow smear piece on the topic, and obviously so. That is my honest, well considered, and I believe accurate view.

Stating that a far left publication such as Vice is reliable, while a far right publication is not, does not really lend actual academic credence because to do so would smack of bias. The only truly valid scholarly test is if the facts themselves have been researched and verified, and in this case they were in the entry I made. I would be happy to make it entirely my wording if you like, but I would hope that Wikipedia would not support either such extreme bias or libel in its entries as that which has replaced my far more balanced entry for now because this would give the impression that Wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia, and in the case of the very clear libel, it is actually illegal. Yours sincerely and with kind regards, Wotanswarriors