Welcome!

Hello, Satanael, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 22:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try to do my best to improve what I can.

As many of you seem to have a problem looking into reasoning/motives behind many of his posts/edits.. I figure it's worth noting that 'EL' means 'GOD'. There are an amazing amount of satanists out there - I, myself came across 10 people of the 'order of the left handed path' at a hacker convention in nashville. One girl was in voting to become an admin on wikipedia. - jbk

I had to revert your edits at Norse mythology. You had added bogus creatures, such as Askefruer, and many creatures that properly belong to Scandinavian folklore. Please be more careful with your edits in the future. Happy editing.--Wiglaf 19:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and I am about to revert the same edits for the second time. Satanael, please use the 'discussion' section of that article in order to justify the edits you wish to make. As Wiglaf mentioned, some of the additions are fictional, which is only the first problem.

One more thing- your edits to Celtic Mythology are workable edits. We can expand on what you added without any problems. I did find that you were adding some names as they would be written in English phonetics rather than using actual Welsh spelling conventions, so be careful about that. Good work there, overall. I hope to see more of the same- we can certainly use the help. P.MacUidhir 06:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I was too enthusiastic at that point, but, I've now posted on the discussion page, so please check there as soon as possible. But, some were fictional? I've encountered Askefruer in folkloric texts many times, but I've never seen them being fictional.

Anyway, you're welcome, I'm not sure what the original spelling on all of the creatures was, as I'm not too familiar with the Celtic language, so I have some trouble distinguishing between Anglo-Saxon, Scottish and Welsh names, so if I'm mistaken, please correct it. I have some creatures in a document I've made, but as it includes every creature I can find from every mythology and folklore, and since only the names are present(as it contains well over 300 beings), I can't distinguish between all of them. Satanael 12:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enthusiasm is reasonable- editing these articles "just a bit more to make them better" is addictive. :) And, of course, one of the rules here is 'be bold!'.

As far as Askefruer are concerned- I would like some sources cited. Those are not known to me, so I am curious as to where they are discussed. Are they from the works of the Grimms? Just a guess on my part, considering they did so much work for continental Germanic folklore preservation. I have read most of their published texts in the original Deutsch, but I could be not remembering quite a lot of what I read at the time. In general, if someone objects to a new addition to an article, just find some (good) sources for the addition and put it in the article's talk page. That gives interested folk a chance to discuss their objections and the validity of the sources involved.

Yes, that is another problem that seems to crop up in dealing with folklore and mythology- creatures, sometimes types of creatures, with different names depending on where they are known. One can give evidence for fairies, fae, the 'little people', and many more for the Sidhe of Éireann. The spelling issue is even more of a problem since spelling standards for Celtic and Scandinavian languages were not really established well or followed with reasonable uniformity in the northern lands until quite a long time after Christianity made its way to those places. This creates arguments between scholars as to which spellings are 'correct', and lots of confusion and textual shouting matches between amateurs online. (and I have seen quite a few of those, I am sad to say, for both contexts). Heck, I even screwed one up yesterday- I changed your 'Cwn Annun' to 'Cwn Annwyn' because I was distracted at the time. Thankfully, someone caught that today and changed it to a better 'Cwn Annwn', which is better in the sense of being more recognisable for modern Welsh users, and more accurate besides if one takes the descriptive side of the prescriptive/descriptive debate in modern linguistics.

Eh. Enough of that. Good to see you still want to help make things better here. ;) As I said, we can use the help. P.MacUidhir 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked it, Askefruer are mythical/folkloric creatures, they aren't fictional.

Anyway, I'll do my best to improve what I can. Satanael 18:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Satanael! I appreciate your interest in improving Scandinavian folklore, even though I'm not sure that the subject is large enough to demand a topics table, nor am I a very big fan of those. I'll let it rest as it is, however. I made some formatting, since I personally think that the tables at Norse mythology and Celtic mythology are rather ugly looking.

That said, feel free to be bold when editing the folklore articles. If I wasn't so lazy, I would already had straighten out the difference at wight between vättar/tussar and huldrefolk/vitterfolk. There's also a lot more to be done, of course. --Salleman 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khaosinfire 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you mean to delete some of what I wrote on Aleister Crowley and Wicca? Dan 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've removed your article nomination in FAC. I'm not sure which of the two you want to feature. Could you please sort things out? Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about it, as I only really want the Norse mythology article there. Nominating the other one was pointless of me. Satanael 15:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've still nominated it incorrectly. If an article was nominated previously, move that FAC nomination to ".../archive1". Follow the instructions and nominate again On a clean slate, not with the old comments on the nomination. I'll fix it for you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I thought I was doing it wrong, I'm still a little confused of all the things on Wikipedia, so if I'm doing something incorrectly, please correct it.

I've corrected it. Please take a look to see what I have done and how I have done it. I hope you are obligated to take care of all objections. Good luck! =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well my freakin goodness person, referring to the Fallen angel page. Satan was named Lucifer, look it up in the frikin bible your self. Plus the saying, "you see God and you die," is a well known phrase as I see. I'm adding back Lucifer, save for the phrase. Your aggressiveness is uncanny, you're the idiot.Rhetoricalwater 05:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm, in the Bible. You mean Isaiah 14:12? Where it says, Quote: "How art thou fallen from heaven, oh morning star, son of dawn...", Where "morning star" was altered to "Lucifer" in the KJV of it.

That phrase doesn't refer to Satan, and never have. If you need proof of that, check a never translation of it, or better yet, read an old Hebrew version of the OT.

And my ... agressiveness, I were hardly agrresive when I wrote that, but I where pointing out how silly the change where, as Satan is not Lucifer, and Beelzebub is not a seraph.

Unless you can show me a whole essay on why Satan and Lucifer are the same, I'm changing it back.

And calling me an idiot back is hardly called for, and it shows intoleranse and ultimately ignorance. I was annoyed by the repeated ignorance of those who change that part from "Satan" to "Lucifer", if I seemed rude or anything like that, then I apologize. Satanael 11:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok kid, I'm not going to argue with someone I don't know, so have it your way. If you call yourself a Christian, you should have the knowledge that Satan in Luicfer, and Lucifer is the devil. I was cleaning and adding to the Fallen angel page, and I suggested that it would be in people's best interest to know that Satan in Luicfer, and Lucifer is the devil. Don't you know that Satan is Lucifer. If you object, tell me why Satan is not Lucifer. And no, I have low tolerance towards people who don't know me, criticizing me. But has no reason to be ruled ignorance. You have not taken things into consideration and thought, therefore you must be lurking in the domes of ignorance, and furthermore if you do things like that, it's acting like a kid. And yes, you were aggressive, I deciphered in your words. Oh yes, I don't vandalise, in fact I've reverted vandalism over 20 times.Rhetoricalwater 12:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retorical water is right. Lucifer is Satan. But when he is called Lucifer, it refers to him before he fell from heaven, when his still was a seriphim of God. OmniAngel 14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Fraid they aren't right about this: This is why people should examine things in context. Ryu Kaze 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's no such thing as the unholy trinity, why are references in Beelzebub??? AHEM: Most modern demonologists has the unholy trinity consisting of Satan, Lucifer and Beelzebub. Satan as the Devil and Sovereign of Earth, Lucifer as Hell's top monarch and Beelzebub as Hell's leading politician. Please, get your facts straight. Rhetoricalwater 18:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Satanael, you recently made a new additions to the SNK Boss Syndrome page, but forgot to go to the Talk:SNK_Boss_Syndrome page and list the reasons why Night Terror has the Syndrome. So if you could please go there, list and provide one or two links, the addition will be added. Until then, unfortunately, I've removed him from the page.--Vertigo200 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for being so blunt here, but you were extremely rude on your edit comments on the article Beelzebub, not to mention not supporting your reverts in any logical way other than claiming that my changes "suck" -- While it's nice to see that you admit that you are a high school student who could not manage to graduate with other people and are now taking another year remedially, how this background would enable you to set yourself up as some sort of expert on encyclopedia writing is a great mystery. In fact, from what I have seen of your edits in most places, you aren;t follow Wikipedia standards in the slightest. As one of many examples, you shouldn't just randomly create sections called "To be written" in live articles, creating new articles call Topic in culture is simply absurd, as every article is a that topic in some culture, what you are looking for is most likely Topic in fiction or not even a separate article at all. Be that as it all may, you need to readjust your attitude, not make personal attacks, and read up on the standards of this encyclopedia. As yet another example, you moved an image of a character (Beelxebub) that is facing to the right back to the right hand side of the screen after I had moved it to the left. The Wikipedia style guide is very clear that right-facing images need to be on the left. And when a section is full of nonnotable trivial details, they should be removed, not preserved and expanded intheir own separate article like you are trying to do with the absurdly named Beelzebub in culture (see WP:ENC). Once you have a better handle on how things work here and read up on the topics you are trying to contribute to, I'm sure you may be able to contribute something of value here. Until then, get the chip off your shoulder and stop reverting changes that are simply bringing the article in line with Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy 13:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm, owned. I'm not taking a remedial year, I suggest you read up on the school systems of other nationalities before making far-out comments based on your own personal bias. My general grade is B average, and improving, so I'll just repeat myself and say again, owned. I'd love talk more about myself, and about ways and means, but seeing as how you would care as little as hell, and seeing as how I care as little as hell, and since you seem to love to "own" yourself, my further intermingling this with personal matters are unecessary.

Well, what I mean by "in culture" is just a general survey. Most articles regarding this have no room for large sections of unecessary jargon.

And my edits in most places. Don't make me laugh. Three or four examples aren't what anyone would call solid evidence or proof of anything. Especially since you haven't checked up on most articles afterwards.

And umm, personal attacks. Practice what you preach, as the Satan in "fiction", Beelzebub, Satan, Image:Beelzebub.gif articles contain what some would define as personal attacks.

And to take up something with the Satan article, the reason for the "to be written" comments is to atleast make a hint to someone, saying "need information". The speed of which anyone would contribute to the articles without them are ridiculously slow. I bet that the Satan article or any other mythological or demonological article would probably look the same even ten years from now, as the pace of which anyone would tend to these articles are, mildly spoken, laughable.

And if you've got something that needs to be adressed, take it up on the talk page of an article, not making these silly comments on my talk page. You can tell what it is on the talk page, for example the deal with the Beelzebub picture. It's not necessary to make large unvalidated edits simply because "you" found it inadequate. One reason for my discontent for your edits is because you show up out of the blue, with no previous noted appearance on the article's history page, and then create a whole edit war for some offbeat reason.

good grief.....it doesn't even matter what grade you are in or what grades you get. Everyone, get a bit of a clue here. Maturity doesn't come with age, it comes with experience. I am 16, and here i am telling yall, the least you could do is handel this in a more proffessional way. don't just go flamming eachother and bickering like school children. just go and say in a calm, cool, manner that this, this, and this are not up to par and it would be nice if you could change it, and if you want i will help you. for the love of God, we are all old enough to be mature citizens, so start acting like one. OmniAngel 15:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you insert random <nowiki> tags in to this article? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did I? If I did, then I didn't mean to. Just remove it, as it was an unintentional move. Satanael 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respectfully, deleting 99% of the Baal demon section (and marking it as "minor edit" besides) is inappropriate. They're very related. The Demon originated from the god! How can you say it is not related and just delete it?

I reverted it.

Having no detail on the demon Ba'al in the main Ba'al article is bad for those researching the demon Ba'al because it unfairly cuts these people off from the primary, better source of information on the origins of ba'al. I've taken a lot of time to compile the Ba'al of Carthage article and the demon ba'al article with this article, while preserving all previous information, including on the non-religious Hebrew word ba'al. Please don't delete.

Nick 01:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is regarding the page King Kong (2005 film). Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --MisterHand 20:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And exactly what was vandalism. Satanael 20:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. Apparently (according to toys I found at Amazon.com the dino is called a "V-Rex." -- MisterHand 22:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's okay, I'm just glad we sorted it out. Satanael 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Satanael,

I will modify the PIE pantheon article once again and this time I politely ask you not to revert it to include the following passage. I quote:

There is still some missing evidence for a god of war, also of death and the negative espects of the sun, as well as of any potential wife. Cognating gods in this fashion is: Ares, Hades and Thanatos in Greek mythology; Mars, Mors and Pluto in Roman mythology; Aita in Etruscan mythology; Chernobog in Slavic mythology, Nergal in Mesopotamian mythology; and Mot in Levantine mythology.

This passage should not be included in an encyclopedic article for two reasons:

• 1) If the evidence is missing for gods of war, death and negative aspects of sun, then, we do not know of such gods, and they possibly never existed. We are guessing about something which may or may not have existed, which is a pure, unsuported guesswork, and not suited for an encyclopedia. If there indeed was a war-god in PIE pantheon, it was most likely a God of Thunder. Neither Ares or Mars were originaly god of wars, but more likely Cultural Heroes conected with agriculture, ancestor worship, and, among toher things, battles. Was Hades originaly a god or simply a name for a world of dead? Chernobog is a name in Slavic mythology known only from several minor passages and, despite extensive fantasy being written about him and his fabricated cousin Belobog, nothing is known of him; we cannot be certain it was an evil god, a god of darkness, Underworld, or even if it was a god itself, or just a name or attribute of some other Slavic diety.
• 2) Nergal of Mesopotamian mythology and Mot of Levantine mythology have nothing to do with the original PIE pantheon. While Mesopotamian and Levantine mythology could have influenced some mythologies of some IE people who later moved to the area of Fertile Cresent (such as Hettites and Indo-Iranians), the original PIE homeland was, according to all known accounts, quite far from either Mesopotamia or Levant. Therefore, Mesopotamian mythologies can only in very few cases be used in a comparative study of IE mythologies, and are not a good source for additional inspiration for various attempts of recounstrcion of dieties of original PIE pantheon.

As you can see, this passage is highly speculative and does not stand up to criticsam very well. The only way to keep it is to quote it from some source and then state it is a hypothessis brought forth by that source. Otherwise, I will modify the article once again and remove it.

Kindest regards - Hier0phant 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well, if it is unverifiable, then please proceed.

But it seems that you know more than I do when it comes to this, so it would be welcome that you correct me if I'm wrong.

One thing I know is that the IE pantheons are connected linguistically, but the thing that daunts me is the similarity between many myths and figures in different areas. Satanael 11:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this your personal interpretation of the song? If it is, it violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. If it's someone else's interpretation, you really need to cite a source. This article will likely end up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as it stands. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Reyk 10:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spiders (System of a Down song): Check the page history. Satanael 10:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's only one edit- by you. I'm not sure what you mean. Reyk 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the redirect... Satanael 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. Gotcha. I didn't notice it was a redirect. Sorry. Looks like you copied the contents, created a new page and made the old one into a redirect. There's actually an easier way to do that. Use the "move" tab; that'll create the redirect for you automatically and the new article won't appear on Special:Newpages, which is where I found it. That's why it looked to me like you'd written it from scratch. Reyk 10:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, ok. Then I guess we were both a little confused. Sorry for the mixup. :D Satanael 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No probs. :) Reyk 11:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot. The "move" function moves the talk page as well, which is important. Reyk 11:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. :) Satanael 15:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering about your change to the Ainulindale article - especially the 'mythical/fictional' remark - could you clarify? User:blackthornbrethil

Myth: The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυϑολογειν mythologein to relate myths, from μυϑος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λογος logos, meaning speech or argument) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

Fiction: Fiction is storytelling of imagined events and stands in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality. A large part of the appeal of fiction is its ability to evoke the entire spectrum of human emotions: to distract our minds, to give us hope in times of despair, to make us laugh, or to let us experience empathy without attachment. Fictional works—novels, stories, fairy tales, fables, films, comics, interactive fiction—may be partly based on factual occurrences but always contain some imaginary content. The term is also often used synonymously with literature and more specifically fictional prose. In this sense, fiction refers only to novels or short stories and is often divided into two categories, popular fiction (e.g., science fiction or mystery fiction) and literary fiction (e.g., Victor Hugo or William Faulkner).

That's pretty much what I meant about it. Don't read to much into it. :) Satanael 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It goes without saying, but of course you understand the distinction between the etymology of a word and its current usage - a distinction here that is, perhaps, exacerbated by your attempt to narrowly fix the definition of λογος ('speech' and 'argument', as you surely know, are but two [poor] modern attempts to alleviate certain complexities by arbitrarily extrapolating what amount to two facets of a multifaceted concept. I am thinking here of what Barfield has to say about the fragmenting of language as it develops.) But misappropriated etymologies are not always important, as I think you clearly would agree. I think what is most important here is the literary understanding of 'mythical', which speaks to the lives of the characters examined: i.e., the main characters of The Silmarillion are not 'normal' in the sense that, say, Bilbo and Frodo are - it is not easy for the reader to put him/her self into the shoes of Ulmo, for example. The gods (especially) and all the persons (quite notably) of the The Silmarillion operate on a plane removed from that of familiar, typical life. These heroes (very important label) are ... idealisms (for lack of a better term). They are rarified extractions, flawless exemplars (be they good or evil, happy or sad) of the human experience. To this extent, they are 'mythical'. Maybe it would be easier if you thought about the way the term 'mythical' is applied to persons and events of normal history. "His performance [on the stage, on the gridiron, in the boardroom] took on mythical proportions" would be the sort of description I am thinking of. It points to the kind of behavior or life we all inherently understand, yet are completely incapable of experiencing or living (a notable dichotomy). This even goes so far as to qualify the way in which characters respond to otherwise inexplicable (magical - or miraculous, if you prefer) events, experiences, influences and powers. Tuor is 'fated' to become who he becomes, and takes it as a matter of course, while Frodo relies on his moral sensibilities to justify his experiences. The fictional histories of The Silmarillion are quite clearly mythical in tenor and scope, thus 'mythical/fictional'. I do appreciate the interest from the younger set, however, and I hope you keep up the good work. TKS - K R Smith User:Blackthornbrethil.

In a Jungian sense, the stories can be said to be mythical, or more accurately, be said to contain mythical content, but that doesn't make it myth(ical) in itself, which is the use I'm objecting against; and its current usage: you mean, it's 'common usage'. The two most common usages of the word "myth" is "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology";"A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth"". Another usage that is fairly common is: "A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia". However, those are thing that are more correctly called "urban legend" or "popular belief". In contrast, the more, etymologically accurate, use of the term that is becoming more frequent in academic circles is: "a story of supernatural events or heroism that is believed to be true by a culture that perceives religious or spiritual significance in it. Recent use of the term by scholars does not imply that the tale is either true or false".

I think a more correct literal variant of the use of the word "mythical" that you postulated(sorry if "postulated" is the wrong word to use), would be epic(al), atleast for the Silmarillion. Satanael 19:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All things being equal, you'll find (if you do the reading) that the basic question of what is a 'myth' is itself frought with danger. It is fair to say that most sources have settled on a definition that puts highest import on the role a 'myth' plays as antecedent to, and paradigm model for, a later society and its sense of purpose and motivation, its laws and traditions, its culture. The second factor is, incontestably, the fantastical nature of the preceding tales. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I by no means wished to send you rummaging about the internet to find the 'Jungian' use of ANY term, let alone the current (as in 'contemporary') use of 'mythical'. I think you are stuck on the idea that a myth must have an organic connection to a real culture, as opposed to a simple yet certain set of other qualifiers that might make a set of tales 'mythical'. That, to me, is a terrible mistake, yet it is one I think you have not been afraid enough of making. There is, of course, a distinction between an organic myth like Gilgamesh, and a manufactured myth like the story of Tuor - and the distinction is summed up by the word "fictional". I hate to use the clause, but at the end of the day, the Silmarillion stories are fictional myths - and this is clearly shown by the nature of the characters and events portrayed. They are fictional because it would be wrong (and foolish) to draw undue comparison between them and what might be otherwise called 'organic' myths, and they are mythical because of their utterly fantastical subject matter, and the way that subject matter relates to the later episodes. VERY IMPORTANT - the qualifier here is the SUBJECT MATTER. The underlying themes of The Silmarillion, and the way in which they are realized or articulated by Tolkien as plot, character and action, are absolutely and incontestably mythical. We are talking about gods and goddesses, fate and heroes, tragedy and war and morality plays, and how all these things 'account for' or provide a geneology of, the later tales and the societies that draw upon them for direction (LoTR, for example), both for the reader AND the characters within the tales that follow - things that speak clearly to later peoples inside and outside the stories, yet without any daily sense of application. The Silmarillion is, in short, a collection of Middle-earth's myths. At the same time, it is clearly a work of fiction. It is a collection of fictional myths. How else can it be described? A few links you might want to browse include the following, which give pretty fair accounts of myth and its components, or discussions of the way the definition of the term 'myth' has changed over time, which you can, in your free time, checklist against the stories of The Silmarillion to your satisfaction: http://www.hfac.uh.edu/MCL/Classics/muthos.html http://www.siskiyous.edu/class/engl12/mythic.htm http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-01-16.html Despite all this, I've modified the word order in the article slightly, so that any possible ambiguity is cleared up. I think the authoritative literature on the subject provides quite clear support for my argument, while your independent 'philological' (loose use) pursuits are just that - independent. If you still must dispute the article as is, then please submit it to this forum's higher process (if you take my meaning). Thanks again, and do keep trying. KRS [[User:blackthornbrethil] Kent 07:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well. Do what pleases you, I don't want us to start arguing over something so seemingly trivial. Don't you agree? Satanael 10:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having read a substantial portion of the rest of this comment page,I find your final remark a bit hard to believe. With all respect, I definitely detect a certain 'fondness' for being trivially argumentative! Nevertheless, I hereby accept the terms of your unconditional surrender. Cheers and K.I.T.! black thorn of brethil 22:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does Del Rey order names of Chinese characters in Negima?

Do they use Western or Chinese order? WhisperToMe 07:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they wrote Kuu Fei's name as Fei Kuu first, but I think that they have recently started ordering it as Kuu Fei now. Satanael 10:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you added a ((POV)) tag to this article. I looked it over and I do think the "ancient" section of the article has a rather anti-Christian slant, but I think the problem could be solved if we just stuck to the facts. Right now, we don't cite any sources at all for that section. I don't have time to work on this right now, but I would certainly appreciate it if you went over there and worked to improve the article... - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you check on the identity of this plant? I was cleaning up water-plantain and I noticed the link, but references on the web suggest that the plant is in fact Plantago major, the great plantain. Choess 02:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I noticed you've added the Japanese Mythology Project user box to your user page. You may also want to add your name to the project page, if you're interested. MikeDockery 06:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of how gramatically appropriate the title of the article is or was, moving and article to another name is not something that you should just come up out of the blue and do unilaterally. At the very least, it would have been more appropriate to start a discussion about it on the talk page of the article to see if everybody else agreed. Next time, please be a little more considerate.PiccoloNamek 16:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I kinda forgot, sorry. Just consider it a spur of the moment thing. Satanael 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So will you be contributing to the discussion on this matter? Quite a few of us would prefer the original page name and location to be restored. Ryu Kaze 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I unfortunately can't right now, as it's too late in the day at this point. However, I'll get to it as fast as I can, which hopefully will be tomorrow. Hang in there. Satanael 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DevilTrigger001.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use ((GFDL-self)) to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as ((Non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 02:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You marked this article for speedy deletion, but didn't specify why. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Please use ((db|Reason)) to mark a page for speedy deletion, or use ((prod)) instead. Stifle 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have come across multiple pages including demonolatry, satan and others where it appears approval, clean up, and no edit tags have been simply placed at random. At some they do seem to need a clean up but please leave some kind of indication of why you are placing the tag. At times pages are being updated several times a day and the generic tag doesn't really indicate much. --Chaoscrowley 07:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After reading the title of the article *DOH*, I can see it from your perspective. Apologies for re-reverting you. That section of the list is useful though, how about we create a new article to include those dogs - i'm not sure what to title it though, how about List of legendary dogs?

- Trysha ^(talk) 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Satanael, I just wanted to inform you Category:Consistent Life Ethic Wikipedians has been deleted, regrettably. Thanks. Эйрон Кинни (t) 19:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use edits summaries while making major changes. It makes it easier for all of us. Thanks. The Gerg 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello my good friend. Hopes these bezzerwizzer on Wikipedia is treating you good. Keep up the good work.Keldon 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As others have pointed out, you should use edit summaries when you make an edit. If you don't think that Man-eating tree belongs in Category:Fictional species, use an edit summary or the article's discussion page to explain your reasoning. Thanks. KarlBunker 21:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Satanael - your username may suggest expertise but it seems you have a history of undiscussed major edits that come very close to vandalism. If you have a problem with an article or section (as in this case Devil#Also_Known_As) please contribute to the discussion first or correct things you know better - do not blank entire sections that have a history and are present in other languages. Thanks Iancarter 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My username is something I chose simply because I liked it. Furthermore, I really don't have a history of undiscussed major edits. Most of them are pretty minor, and the only major wasn't vandalism, and was settled quite peacefully.

The reason I removed that section was because it consisted of poorly written, unencyclopedic balony. I'll present my reasons why that section is so bad, and after I've done so, it will be removed, as it does not belong there at all. Lemegeton 10:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not change the usage of "mythology" to "storyline" in the article Lost (TV series). See extended comments at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Use of term "mythology"--Leflyman^Talk 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits to articles on the Proto-Indo-Europeans contain factual errors. Please don't edit the article if you really have no training whatsoever in the subject. CRCulver 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though I don't have any real education regarding the Proto-Indo-Europeans, I know enough to be able to edit the article. Anyway, my errors were a mere mistake and oversight. dzeious was because I remembered that Zeus most likely derives from Dzeus, then decided not to as it would be erroneous to what the article said. But I see that I apparently missed it. Lemegeton 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have spent a great deal of energy trying to enforce a single meaning of "mythology" on Wikipedia. Please stop; the English language is not so confined; nor is there consensus on the matter within comparative mythology.

It is also useful, when making controversial edits in this style, to state your authority; without that, these edits fail the requirement of verifiability. Septentrionalis 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently continued these edits to pages such as J. R. R. Tolkien, please discuss these changes on the discussion page before enacting them. Especially on pages that have been Featured Articles and received various other accolades. I have not removed your edits at this time and I will post a topic on the discussion page for the community to decide which for is/was the better choice. Thank you for your future forethought. Das Nerd 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Satanael. I moved scientific mythology back to the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves because you did not create a place for discussion on the talk page and nobody commented on the current proposal, although a move had been discussed in the past. I created one for you. There are instructions for how to do it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks, Kjkolb 07:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I tried messageing an admin or something, but I have been out of this site for a while so maybe you may know what to do. The Blue Man Group article has compleatly dissappeared/been deleted. Thought you might want to check it out.OmniAngel 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, yet again. The same thing has happened to the Blink-182 article. Might it be just my web-browser? I have experimented with many other articles, but the seem to be viewed just fine. Is there anyone who could assist? OmniAngel 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you listed yourself as a linguist. There is currently a dispute at the Lindy Hop article the Dance WikiProject about the capitalization of dances that could use the expertise of a linguist. If you think you might be able to help, we would certainly appreciate your comments. Thanks! --Cswrye 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I noticed this edit you made to the Bulbasaur article. Your edit summary was: "removed redundant section and places the relevant info in the intro. I hope no one objects". Unfortunately, when looking at the diff, the name of the creator of Pokemon has now been left out of the introduction or first few sections completely, and is only mentioned a long way down the article. You also say that you have placed the relevant information in the introduction. In fact, everything in the introduction should be repeated in the main part of the article. The introduction (more properly called the lead section) should be seen as a summary of the article, and something that someone could read on its own, without reading the rest of a long article. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I assumed the section was redundant considering an introduction to Pokemon would be erroneous on an article about a pokemon. I checked the discussion that was there, and so I decided to improve it based on the current comments. Lemegeton 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's me, SonOfYoungwood. — Deckiller 07:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yo. Btw. Damn you. You've been really busy here on Wikipedia, haven't you? :P

Well, not that it's a bad thing. Atleast you'll know how to do proceed, something I'm not so comparable at. Concerning FAs and the like, that is.'

Well then, are you ready to do this.

Oh, and is there any particular Xeno-articles that you would like to focus on? Lemegeton 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you'll notice, the discussion for Naruto naming order was closed three days ago. The discussion is archived, and not supposed to be edited. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, kinda thought so. Sorry. I assumed if would still be allowed if it only was to comment. Again, sorry. Lemegeton 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. You can comment, but as noted by the text surrounding the discussion, it's got to be in a completely new section anyway. —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. As you could see, however, I wanted to directly comment. No matter. I'll make a comment later, and point to what I wanted to comment.

Oh, by the way, what's your take on the whole discussion. Lemegeton 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started the nom to move all the pages. It was mostly for consistency's sake, since most other anime character articles had the names in Western order - why should Naruto get an exception to the rules in WP:MOS-JA and WP:ANIME? Most of my arguments are explained in the discussion itself, though. —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:Gregorian chant for why "myth" is the appropriate term, and "rumor" inappropriate, in this article. Peirigill 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - why'd you remove the reference to Plato's Cratylus on the history section of the Etymology page? Pindar and Plutarch get a mention, but no Plato? - Ravenous 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opps, sorry. A little mishap. I'll correct it. Lemegeton 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cosmology is not the appropriate name for it, regardless of your dislike of the term Artificial Mythlogy. Please read the Artificial mythology section of Wikipedia, part of the Mythology portal and discuss your misgivings there. Until the term Artificial Mythology gets removed from Wikipedia we shall use it for consistency. Do NOT take unilateral decisions this is a group endeavor. Renmiri 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artificial mythology is a nonnotable coinage, and isn't a standard term for anything. It is not mythology. Furthermore, it lacks citations. In fact, it would be infinitely more logical if "Artificial mythology" was a redirect to Fictional universe. Lemegeton 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of what Encyclopedia Britannica says, here at Wikipedia the term Artificial Mythology is still a valid term. In the interest of respecting your opinion, I propose we discuss alternatives for naming that section (see below) Renmiri 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cosmology is a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe. It is also a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe. That said, it obviously does not belong where you keep placing it. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That said, it obviously does not belong where you keep placing it.

And "mythology" is supposedly a better option?

If it's that big a crisis, then drop cosmology, although it's still a million times better than mythology. "The term mythology denotes both the study of myth and the body of myths belonging to a particular religious tradition." — Encyclopedia Britannica Lemegeton 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine, if you are that hard set against Mythology find a term we all can live with then, propose it on the WPFF project talk page and let's see if we can get consensus. Your dropping of Cosmology is a good start. Renmiri 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the FAC for unfinished work. It seems that Raul654 decided that the nomination had gotten stale and, after many additions to the article, I have renominated it. Please take a look to see if it meets your approval. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Satanael, Tudor myth is on my watchlist, and I am a little alarmed that you moved the page without any editor consensus. Looking through your edit history, I am a bit perplexed as to your apparent aversion to the terms "myth" and "mythology" - would you mind explaining this a bit? Thanks, --TurabianNights 01:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Satanael, there was a discussion of the use of the word "myth" on the talk page of Atlantis; your edits are against the consensus that was arrived at. If you're unhappy with the article, please discuss your proposed changes on the Talk:Atlantis talk page; the edit war that you're instigating is unproductive. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine and all, but that doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect. The "Platonic myths", as I've said many times, are not actual "myths". Lemegeton 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Satanael, consensus is firmly against your change of "myth" to "story", "tale", or anything else. Please stop making changes to Atlantis until you discuss them on the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk)

If someone reverts your changes, it's usually more productive to discuss things on the article's associated talk page than simply revert back. So why don't you explain what's so objectionable about calling Helen a mythological figure on the talk page? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Simply revert it back"? How is a "simple" revert? You reverted my edits just because you felt one tiny, measly, itsy bitsy piece of the article previously looked better to you. I don't see you are so intent on it spelling it out that it is about a mythological figure, when it pretty much is obvious at first look. It is about the Helen of Troy. If there was any sort of serious academic discussion of whether she exists or not, if that's relevant(to this), then it would be in the article. Or whatever. Lemegeton 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on your edits to Helen, Atlantis, and other articles you seem to have a problem with the words "mythology" and "mythological". It's a good idea to spell out that Helen is a mythological figure in the disambig line, since many WP readers aren't familiar with Greek mythology, and even those who have heard of Helen might not know that she is a figure from mythology, not history. The word "legendary", which you put in in one of your edits, implies that there is historical content to her story. I'm putting "mythological figure" back in; if, as you seem to be saying, it merely restates what's obvious from the article, there should be no objection to the text. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem? If you had paid any attention to any of my edits you'd see why I have this "problem".

"Not history" A distinction between "myth" and "history" isn't one for Wikipedia to pull. And it isn't clear cut what type of narrative(s) she figure in, if it legends or myths.

Since the article is about the Helen of Troy, not Helen (mythology) or Historical Helen of Troy, any sort of pointing out is completely redundant. Just as with many of the articles concerning various mythological, such as Jupiter (mythology), it implies that any thing about that figure is restricted to what it stated in the stories about him/her/it.

Anyway, none of this excuses why the etymology and source(s) I provided was reverted. Lemegeton 17:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you read Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien#Recent Edits concerning Mythology? At least write something on the talk pages. If you're getting that riled up, there's artificial mythology. Uthanc 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I reverted your recent edits to the Jesus article. C.S.Lewis wrote several books on the topic of pagan myhology where the words "pagan mythology" were used. It's best to keep the author's words when we discuss his works.

Also, you switched Mtyh to Ledgend on the discussion of Jesus. Generally speaking the word mythology as it applies to Jesus is the prefered term of scholars who don't believe in the historicity of Jesus, and when we discuss thier theories we tend to use thier terms. Peace. --Homecomputer 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine and all, but Lewis isn't quoted, making it rather irrelevant, as he can not and does not dictate how any article is written.

The word myth is ill-applied to Jesus or the stories about him. The words 'myth' and 'mythology' both have their meanings. The Jesus Mythers don't decide anything either. Lemegeton 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mythology is a perfectly appropriate word, as it involves supernatural figures and religion. It fits far better than legend. Please see the mythology article for the definition. DreamGuy 23:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, but the stories about/of Jesus(or Buddha, Zarathustra, or St. George, for that matter) aren't myths, and never will be. I'm sure you know that, anyway. Lemegeton 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear ya, I'm just saying myth is the term that is used in such a situation when the historical truth of a figure is being discussed. It's pretty much allready agreed upon in scholarship and thus reflected in the article. It's been that way for a long time, as far back as Lewis, maybe further. Ledgend just isn't used like that. --Homecomputer 05:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not agreed upon in any kind of way as far as I know. "The scholars", like so many others, use the words they "have at their disposition", nothing more. The "misuse", so to speak, of the words 'myth' and 'mythology' have no place in a proper encyclopedia, and shouldn't have any place either.

Lewis was only following the same use as the many Christian writers before him who used the word pejoratively.

Legend is in many cases used exactly like that, as far as I've seen. Lemegeton 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why on Earth would you add a German-language mythology site as an external link to an English language article? Please see the Wikipedia:External links policy on why that is not allowed. I am removing it again. DreamGuy 23:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm, I haven't added anything. But I did revert an edit about something like that. I didn't really think about why it was removed. But then again, as the link isn't used as a direct source, there is no real reason to keep it, anyway. Lemegeton 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are very intent in regards to what the words myth and mythology mean, and you seem to have a desire to push your personal POV of what is and isn't their correct usage. Please look at any dictionary, for example definitions 2-4 here. We have verifiable sources that these words can be used in these manners. Your personal belief otherwise is not good enough per wikipedia policies to change our usage of these words. Looking through your talk page, it seems as if a large number of your changes have been controversial, including editors at times pointing out that you are ignoring previous discussions and consensus. I understand completely that you believe these words mean only one thing and should only be used in those contexts, but unfortunately for you, that is not how wikipedia works. I urge you to stop editing pages for the sole purpose of changing the words myth/mythology, and to please find more constructive and productive ways to contribute to wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.--Andrew c 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can assure that the only POV I'm pushing, or trying to push, is an academic one. The definition I use is proper usage, any dictionary will tell you that.

I know very well what dictionaries say, but that's much beside the point. I've said this time and time again: This is an encyclopedia. Being an encyclopedia, it should make use of the academic definition of specific terms, or of words with specific meanings(words or terms like 'evolution', 'immaculate conception', fiction' springs to mind). Wikipedia contain some of the most sloppy uses of words I have ever seen in any place, not just for "myth", "mythology", or "mythos". Slang use, uses which are hardly or not the least supported by any dictionary, have I found here. It's all rather silly.

I don't know what people think Wikipedia is, but as far as I'm concerned, it's an encyclopedia, and should follow the same way as any other proper encyclopedia does.

I'd love to discuss a million years on all the talkpages, but unfortunately, I hardly ever have the time. I simply don't have the leisure time to be able to speak on and on about how I were right all along. And whenever I have said anything, it's ignored or countered with circle-logic.

I'll answer the talkpages I can, that is as soon as I have the time to sit down and do it. Lemegeton 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but your attitude disgusts me. You don't have time to discuss controversial matters because you know you are right? Take a step down from your high horse for a second. Wikipedia is about community involvement and consensus. From WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary... Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. Wikipedia should be professional and formal, to an extent, but our audience is not college professors (or even acedemic for that matter). Idiomatic and informal language should be avoided, but common uses of words should not be avoided because a single rogue editor believes there is only one "proper" definition for a word. If you can't bother to discuss things on talk, then why are you even bothering with wikipedia? If your sole purpose is to edit pages to remove what you perceive to be improper uses of the words myth and mythology, then I would seriously recommend finding another project to contribute to. That said, I do believe you can be a productive contributer, but I don't believe changing the common usages of words is the best way to go about that.

As for the specifics of this topic, none of my dictionaries mark any of the common meanings of the word 'myth' as being idomatic or slang. Look at Britannica's article on Helen, they use the word 'mythology' in the first sentence. If you seriously cannot let this go, I would urge you to discuss this on either a MoS talk page, or at the village pump to get other editors imput and maybe get a site-wide guideline instated that would apply for all of articles. This approach is better than having small battles on every other page.--Andrew c 18:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, but if you can't see, I'm extremely annoyed. I honestly don't know how many times I've said this. But, I don't mean to be rude or act arrogant or anything like that.

Though, I clearly said I don't have the time, not that I don't want to, or won't bother. The reason I don't have time is because I do have a life outside this website. I'd love to discuss it and any changes. But, most of them don't exactly take 5 minutes.

No, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. It's not Wikipedia's job to lecture people in how to use words, idioms or whatever. But it is Wikipedia's duty as an encyclopedia to define certain terms, and employ them as consistently as possible. As an encyclopedia, it should follow in the same line as other encyclopedias. Britannica has a quite lengthy article on myth, defining the term and rejecting the colloquial use, and follows that consistently throughout. I presume they do the same with other words such as 'evolution' and 'fiction'.

but our audience is not college professors (or even acedemic for that matter)..

That's beside the point. It's not like the definition I employ is some obscure terminology known to only a few people, now is it? Besides, It's exactly the reason why people use encyclopedias, to learn. Wikipedia shouldn't cater to popular opinion or whatever. In the same way, we don't cater to religious individuals or institutions who are likely offended in seeing their sacred narratives be called 'myths'.

As far as I know, no dictionary or encyclopedia reject the definition(s) I use. I'm not trying to change any definitions either. I'm well aware what the dictionaries say. But I'm also well aware that the definitions I use are the primary ones, as well as being the "specific" meanings employed by scholars. In most of the disputes it is regarding a use that is completely erroneous, unsupported by any dictionary or encyclopedia.

As for the specifics of this topic, none of my dictionaries mark any of the common meanings of the word 'myth' as being idomatic or slang.

b. in generalized use. Also, an untrue or popular tale, a rumour (colloq.). — OED

Look at Britannica's article on Helen, they use the word 'mythology' in the first sentence.

I see it. And I can see nothing wrong with that use. So what's your point? Lemegeton 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You removed the wording that the article Hellen was about a mythological figure. And I believe your argument was that she didn't fall under your definition of "mythology", so I pointed to an encyclopedia that also considered her a part of Greek mythology. Sorry if I am missing something. Anyway, my point is that to avoid conflicts on each article's talk page, and to avoid people coming to your user talk questioning you edits you could a) stop editing in such a controversial manner or b) go to a community wide level to try and get support for your changed before you make them (such as starting a centralized discussion, or just going to the village pump). Just some ideas, sorry if I got a little TOO offended. Good luck.--Andrew c 03:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My objection to had nothing to do whether she is a mythological figure. I didn't remove "in Greek mythology" from the intro, for instance. My objection to it was that the article is about THE Helen of Troy, not just about the figure described in mythology. Helen of Troy was also a cult figure, and it's entirely possible that she was an historical figure as well.

Anyways, I fail to see the controversy. Take the article "Spira (Final Fantasy X) for example. The uses of "mythology" present in the article are by no means supported by any dictionary. Lemegeton 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)¨Reply[reply]

Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment Goldfritha 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your edits to Bible, in which you removed a section on arguments against the Documentary hypothesis. I acknowledge the section may be problematic, its sourcing is hard to determine given the general lack of footnote-style sourcing in the article, and it may give too much weight to arguments against (I noticed an absence of arguments in favor). I also acknowledge you are a longstanding editor with many contributions. And I could be persuaded that a simple summary might be a better alternative given that that the Documentary hypothesis has its own article that can be referred to. Nonetheless, controversial content should generally not be removed wholesale. A preferred alternative is )a) point people to the summary and/or (b) Organize controversial content into subsections (e.g. the hypothesis itself, arguments for, arguments against) to prevent arguments against from appearing to overly undermine a simple exposition pf a viewpoint, (c) Ask for sources for content you believe may be incorrect by both making a request on he talk page and using the ((fact)) template in the article itself; provide more content on the opposing side (i.e. provide a section summarizing evidence and arguments in favor of the documentary hypothesis).

I'll attempt to implement a summary pointing to the main article; please discuss on Talk:Bible if you disagree.

There is an article on artificial mythology. As I've already said back on September 15, please take the time to read Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien#Recent Edits concerning Mythology for some responses to your terminology edits (if you still haven't), and to discuss them on article talk pages first. "Larger cycle" skirts the problem nicely though. Uthanc 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because the article exists doesn't mean that there actually exists something called "artificial mythology".

The "Artificial mythology"-article is almost indistinct from of the article "Fictional universe". Lemegeton 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right, all right, I've read this:

Film and book series ...sometimes have strong mythological aspects that sometimes develop into deep and intricate philosophical systems. These items are not mythology, but contain mythic themes that, for some people, meet similar psychological needs.

Fiction, however, does not reach the level of actual mythology until people believe that it really happened.

If that's how you people want it... But terminology is the problem here; "legendarium" looks esoteric, "fictional universe" won't do in some instances... "Mythology" is easily understood, whether it's correctly being used or not. The use of "mythology" to denote non-ancient fiction may be strictly wrong, but why not just put it in quotation marks and point out the inaccuracy in a footnote? English is malleable anyway... "Pseudo-mythology" (looks like mythology but isn't)? But coining terms isn't very credible for an encyclopedia..

From Talk: Artificial mythology: Craig J. Saper has written a book, Artificial Mythologies: A Guide to Cultural Invention, 1997, Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. So that term at least isn't a new coinage, whether it's right or wrong. Amazon.com page: [1]

Also, if you have time, why don't you note this on the article talk pages, or the Middle-earth WikiProject? We're currently deciding on terminology as well. Uthanc 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If by "reverted redundant section" you meant the "Lit, music, gaming, etc." headers, you also removed about a dozen cultural references. If that was your intention, then please give a more descriptive reason why the references should be removed. If it's cluttering the page, perhaps it should be separated into it's own page, but being as you added your own. With about 5 references under each, it seems pretty balanced. - A.J. 15:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I phrased it badly. My intention was to revert that particular section back (to a previous state that is much better). We don't need lots of pop culture references that almost take up more space then the actual topic. Hardly any of them contribute much to the article, anyway. Lemegeton 15:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop changing instances of "mythology" to "folklore" within articles such as kitsune and Otogizōshi‎, unless you can point to multiple reliable sources that show the usage is incorrect. There are numerous sources using "myth," and a unilateral change on the grounds that "I think they're wrong" is POV and original research. Thanks. Shimeru 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mythology and folklore aren't synonymous. We can't say "mythology" when folklore is intended, and so on. Even if a source uses myth or legend, doesn't mean that the story is a myth/legend. A source isn't valid on all areas on virtue of being a source. (If a source acts as if, say, mythology is the same as a religion no longer practiced, or if a biologist uses "immaculate conception" when speaking of virgin birth, does that make it valid?) Proper terminology is "folktale", not "myth". Alan Dundes, Encyclopedia Britannica, Arnt Stabell-Kulø, etc, as well as any dictionary I can find, agrees. Lemegeton 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree in general. But when a source specifically uses "myth" or "mythology" in relation to a particular subject, and that source is written by scholars of myth and folklore, what grounds do you have for stating they're wrong? It's not as if they're random sources, either; Smyers has written what's probably the definitive English-language Inari study; Nozaki's book is considered the authoritative source on kitsune. These are not people ignorant of the difference between mythology and folklore. In the absence of some source showing specifically that they're incorrect about this topic, I have to trust that they know what they're talking about. Complicating the situation even more is the fact that "myth" (as distinct from "mythology") also carries the meaning of simply "A fictitious thing, story, person, or concept; an unproved or false collective belief." Shimeru 20:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been almost 3 months since I last spoke with you, and I see you still are editing wikipedia for the sole reason of changing the word "mythology". And looking at your talk page, this still seems to be starting controversy. I urge you again to please find more productive things to do on wikipedia. Please accept that there are multiple meanings to the word "mythology" and that your POV is not the only POV. So please stop pushing it, and refrain from editing articles to change the use of 'myth'. There are many, many other things you could do to help improve wikipedia. Thank you again for your consideration. --Andrew c 23:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lucifer.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 04:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 08:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Akatsukispread.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I didn't notice any discussion and consensus for your changes to the heavy metal template or Heavy metal music - did I miss something? Editing in good faith is always welcome, but be aware there has been constant discussion about this page and template and any undiscussed changes are highly likely to be reverted. Thanks, Deiz talk 09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beelzebub in popular culture, an article you created, was nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case the nominator does not feel that Beelzebub in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; the nominator explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beelzebub in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Beelzebub in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yo welcome to the Devil May Cry task force, I hope you enjoy your stay, Peace. -凶 14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I will contribute to the extent of my knowledge and abilities. Lemegeton 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dante is up as a Featured Article Candidate please voice your opinion here. -凶 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Satanael. Your edit here introduced text copied from [2]. Please do not copy text from other websites. Paul August ☎ 02:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That edit, eh? It's starting to be a long time since then. How time flies.

Anyways. My edit was actually a copyedit from an earlier version of the article. I wasn't aware of the other website. Neither was I aware that the editor responsible for editing that into the article had copied it from somewhere else. I'll try to be more dilligent. Lemegeton 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, no problem. Paul August ☎ 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad we could figure out. (A lot of users often unscrupulously accuse others of plagiarism or other things.) Thanks for making me aware of it. Lemegeton 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone has proposed a merge of demonolatry with demonology. You've contributed to the article, so it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts. Hope to see you on the talk page sometime:)Merkinsmum 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Porcupine Tree. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Kerrow 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism my foot. And, "Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia"? So, we are to keep everything, even if it is erroneous or vacuous? The only text I removed was some of the "Current Schedule"-text, as it is already found under "Growth (Phase Three)", as well as the redunant listing of members, which is already done in the infobox.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how my edit qualifies as "vandalism", on any level. If anything, I fixed it. The large headings, in particular, as they were quite the eyesore.

So, unless you can tell me how my edit was a vandalizing one, I'll revert the article. Lemegeton 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, my bad there. I noted a rather large change in content and a quick, cursory scan of the diff indicated that some information was removed, including information about the current state of the band that you would generally find in the front. I'll undo my revert, but reinclude some of the information you removed at the opening paragraph. Again my apologies, I acted too hastily. Kerrow 20:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And next time, when you make an edit of that size perhaps you'd like to clarify in the summary section. That threw me off a bit too, thanks! Kerrow 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:SIG, usernames and signatures should generally resemble each other. Any reason why yours are completely different? Deiz talk 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beelzebub in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Beelzebub in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beelzebub in popular culture (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Beelzebub in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KOS-MOS XS4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rasta.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:User religion-N requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((transclusionless))</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BlueEyeKOSMOS3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have found your username from the spirituality section. I need your help and suggestion. I am trying to add an article on one of the Living spiritual teacher. but,I am facing an problem.

The editors who have visited this page don't understand spirituality and they have tagged it for deletion. i need your help urgently. so they are trying to compare it with other biographies in the field of sports etc. As you know,the field the spirituality is not very commercial. so I am having a hard time convincing them. could you please help amd and take a look at article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Lucille http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Lucille.

Appreciate all your help.

Thanks Amarhindustani Amarhindustani (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Aniel, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Teeraal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for an entity of this name in any mythology

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ruskinmonkey (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Timestamp: 20110628144038Reply[reply]

The article Teeraal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence for an entity of this name in any mythology

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ruskinmonkey (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Timestamp: 20110628144038Reply[reply]

The article Ceffyl Dŵr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Extremely minor figure in folklore (at least by this name) with only one reliable source, and it's a trivial mention within that one source. Other articles on similar topics cover the folklore concept already.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beelzebub0.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Bánánach has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced, flagged for needing sourcing for years now.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bánánach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bánánach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]