User talk:Geno Garon/Lewdaism

I'll be watching this page. Please make sure it conforms with the Fictional Content Guidelines. I don't want to have to do a ton of editing, per se. Dioism is a pretty good example of what the line is. If you are unsure, contact a EREP:UBER
- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher / Hey girl, can I hit you back? 05:29, 2 December 2008 (EET)

I'll work on it, but I'm going thru Finals week for, like THREE weeks, so it might be a bit till it gets to Dioism level... -- Geno

Protip: ~ Geno won't show your name. Take your time. As long as some progress is made every once in a while, all is well.
- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher / Hey girl, can I hit you back? 02:50, 3 December 2008 (EET)

Got it. Also, I think I figured out my signature. Here's hoping... --Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 03:10, 3 December 2008 (EET)

Start

Good start. A few things that point out.

• Pictures would be nice.
• Formatting in the last section
• Avoid all caps. Use ' ' instead. Try it, it makes stuff funny looking.
• Try to use a template. I think, off the top of my head, Dioism has a religion template you can probably use. Don't quote me.

Keep workin' at it.
- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher / Hey girl, can I hit you back? 04:25, 3 December 2008 (EET)

Progress

I think the Lewisism page has made some good progress. Added a template that gives all the relevant information, and it should be easy enough to edit in more.
Also fixed the formatting issues and did some minor tweaks.
--Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 09:54, 3 December 2008 (EET)

Very good job Geno. Keep at it.
- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher / Hey girl, can I hit you back? 13:51, 3 December 2008 (EET)

Template

Please create a template and use it, instead of putting complex code directly into a page, look at Dioism for examples --Mini "Template boy" Bill have a biscuit 15:50, 3 December 2008 (EET)

Neutrality discussion

If this "religion" is for the sole purpose of mocking another player, then I think we need to discuss removing the entire article. --QJ Lincoln 16:25, 30 December 2008 (EET)

How can you say something like this when you CLEARLY can see that people are making fun of him and making religious in his own name? He does not want, thus he has every right to delete this article. If DF/TGM/whoever wants a religion he should do one on himself and leave other people alone if they have not agreed to it. --Aryamehr talk 17:47, 30 December 2008 (EET)

The discussion took place, time was let for people to discuss. Page Unprotected --Mini "Template boy" Bill have a biscuit 22:34, 8 January 2009 (EET)

Delete

• +1 STOP THE IDIOT RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!! I DON'T SUPPORT IT AND THIS IS MICHAEL LEWIS SAYING THIS! -- User:Michael Lewis

This idiot religion is going to mess up my CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT OF eUSA! I want it deleted! I've told them a billion times to stop the RELIGION! Listen I've talked to te admins and they still won't stop the religion. The next step is to get them banned from eRepublik PERMANENTLY! Or ban them from the wiki PERMANENTLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Lewis (talk • contribs)

As I understand your problems I'm commenting out the page and protecting it. We'll probably delete it, but before that we have to listen at the person who created it to see if he has anything to say --Mini "Template boy" Bill have a biscuit 18:25, 30 December 2008 (EET)

They don't care. --TheSupernatural Who wants to be a Supernatural?The SaNdBoX 06:02, 31 December 2008 (EET)

• +1 It should be deleted. Seriously, how can you as a sysop allow someone to make fun of someone else without their 'approval'? I mean how would you feel say if I got all your information and made a religion to make fun of you on the wiki, forums etc. That's directly against the rules. They use Lewis as some kind of figure for this religion, he does not like it, he does not want to be part of it, he is not what they claim him to be. Read the Erepublik rules, if you want I can bring them to you and show you which ones they are breaking by having this page. --Aryamehr talk 15:30, 9 January 2009 (EET)

Mr. Lewis's own actions are the only thing being reproduced on this wiki entry. They are, of course, being put into a different context (religious affirmation as opposed to simple historical documentation) but none of the elements of this religion were created without being predicated by an action of Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis once said that he was one of the most popular people in Erepublik, with several national leaders knowing him, all while being less than a month old. We are only helping to confirm and reinforce this "popular Lewis" idea.

When a person acts, is it not in keeping with natural law that their actions have consequences? If a person were to have ruined a nation's economy, and several people on the wiki devoted a new page of the wiki to a market system called (name)inomics as a satirical look at their actions and ideas, would that be deleted from the wiki as well? I doubt it, seeing as how lots of people in that country would have been affected by this person's actions, and the wiki page itself, while humorous, serves also as a reference to things that happened in the past. Lewisism is like this, a humorous take on the actions of a man larger than eLife itself. That he does not like it is really no concern at all. If had not acted the way he had, for an extended period of time on innumerable occasions, Lewisism would have never come to be, but instead, it is simply here, a half-history/half-distillation of a man's eLife, seen through the eyes of the people who beheld him.

--Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 17:12, 9 January 2009 (EET)

• +1 I agree with Aryamehr, If you cannot show HOW "it is part of the eUSA's cultural history. It took up a large amount of discussion and devotion over the past few months." or HOW "Mr. Lewis's own actions are the only thing being reproduced on this wiki entry." - then I also propose deletion. --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 17:29, 11 January 2009 (EET)

Leave

• +1 First, I would like it to be stated that I did not create this religion, I am only chronicling it. Those who first started the religion have moved on, so I do not see future edits until something new comes along.

Secondly, the religion was never made to insult or criticize Michael Lewis in any way. From what I have found, the actions of Michael Lewis himself have been taken by those who witnessed them, and turned into a way of life for others to follow. From what I understand, threatening people with Real World police investigation, calling them idiots, and flying off the handle demanding permanent bans is not in keeping with the spirit of Erepublik, but creating a living, flowing world is. A cult of personality can occur whether the object of affection means it to or not, and to demand that such a thing be erased from public record is akin to censorship. I am truly sorry if Michael Lewis deems Lewisism detrimental to his presidential run, but perhaps he should look first to his own actions. Without the aforementioned interesting personality quirks, Lewisism would never have spawned in the first place. Lewisism is a response to an extremely vocal and boisterous person. That his following be the same, I think, is fair.

I'm still not entirely sure what the objection to Lewisism is in the first place. If we could be more specific in the things being called into question, I would be happy to take a crack at answering them.

--Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 05:33, 31 December 2008 (EET)

• +1 I would just like to throw my two cents in here. I really don't care about Lewisism, but I have to say that it is part of the eUSA's cultural history. It took up a large amount of discussion and devotion over the past few months. If what we are chronicling here is what has transpired on eRepublik, then this should be included. Plus, like Geno said, I really don't see what the removal plea is all about. -- PrincessMedyPi 06:49, 31 December 2008 (EET)
• +1 Geno and Medy Pierric Bross 07:10, 31 December 2008 (EET)
• 0 I'm not in disagreement with the article, but the entire religion can be perceived to be sarcastic, and thus harmful to his political career. Although the article itself isn't offensive, Michael Lewis is clearly offended by it's presence, and I doubt that any Lewisists currently plan to back him when he runs for office. However, I fully support the Americans in engaging in a fictional religion, and I will defend their rights to do so. I believe that fictional religions support the goal of the developers (To create "a new history") and should be respected both on the Wiki and in the game. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 02:12, 1 January 2009 (EET)
• +1, but edit it saying that Michael Lewis don't like it --Mini "Template boy" Bill have a biscuit 11:47, 4 January 2009 (EET)

Can we get a final resolution on this situation? --QJ Lincoln 18:16, 8 January 2009 (EET)

You're not answering my question

You guys aren't answering my QUESTION! I asked for the article to be deleted because most of the people who support the stupid religion I 've hated before the idiot religion was even started. Desertfalcon is one of them. I mean he won't LEAVE ME ALONE! He's also ralph nader! Becasue he lost every presidential election - Michael Lewis

"You guys aren't answering my QUESTION!"

You have not asked a question.

"I asked for the article to be deleted because most of the people who support the stupid religion I 've (sic) hated before the idiot religion was even started."

Asking for deletion based on hate is called censorship. Hatred of those who say something is no excuse to demand it be removed.

I think we see where this is coming from now. Michael Lewis wants to silence people he "hates", and that simply is not enough to delete a piece of eAmerican cultural history. I apologize to Michael Lewis for his discomfort, but this is, like I said, eAmerican history, and should not be deleted just because he hates those who started it.

P.S. Oddly enough, this particular trait is already a part of Lewisism, "We must always erase those things which we find harm us. If we cannot, we demand of those who wrote them that they be erased." Quoted directly from the archived Lewisism page

P.S. When are we wrapping up this 'neutrality' thing? I think we've pretty clearly established that, while Michael Lewis is pissed about Lewisism, that in and of itself is no reason for its deletion. --Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 19:27, 1 January 2009 (EET)

Now that all links and mentions of the specific person of Michael Lewis have been removed, I would like to call for a new vote for inclusion back into the wiki. If anyone has any edits they would like to see before putting Lewdaism back into the wiki, please let me know. Also, I am working on cleaning up a "Book of Lewis" provided to me by a follower of Lewis, and if anyone would like to see it, please message me in some way. --Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 12:48, 23 January 2009 (PST)

*cough* the image --Mini "Template boy" Bill have a biscuit 13:29, 23 January 2009 (PST)