Talk:Malphas

I Believe this is highly Blasphemous to Malphas, and i would like this description to be changed.

Vovim Baghie - Samurai Of Malphas (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did what was asked

I did what was asked i brought the topic here, yet there is no reply, and i already know the outcome, just because i want to rectify this blasphemous information about Malphas, you will find any excuse to ban me and keep the old information.

Vovim Baghie - Samurai Of Malphas (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been a few minutes. Please have a little patience. I'm hoping to get more input from the noticeboard. Basically, they might be used as a reference for what they believe, but very unlikely for what is. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant ignorance

This is so typical i have faced this situation many times, just because i am a Spiritual Satanist you all either ignore, Silence, suspend, or ban my account. This is a good view of the biased opinion you take towards the Gods, www.JoyofSatan.org, and Spiritual Satanists. I will correctly change Malphas's Description! no matter How Many time you ban me. I have the constitutional right to freedom of speech, and the right to post the truth on a public forum\media.

Vovim Baghie - Samurai Of Malphas (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Onorem Dil

you seem to be the only person with an un-biased opinion, i am sorry for my impatience but this has happend to me many times and i am starting to get sick of it. thank you for bieng the sensible enough to talk to, even with my last attempts in the now banned account S.O Malphas.

Vovim Baghie - Samurai Of Malphas (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Malphas?

Hello. I was just wondering, Samurai of Malphas...

I've always been interested in Satanism/Demonology. However getting too involved in it does frighten me a bit, but that won't stop me from studying it. What would your description of the demon Malphas be, just out of interest?

Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.128.98 (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That user has not been active since January last year. I seriously doubt you're going to get a response, but considering he calls himself a "Samurai of Malphas" and thinks the traditional description is "blasphemous," he's probably going to fanboy and go with something comic-book-ish and "cool." Looking through his edits, he tried to make the article say:

"Malphas has tan skin and a muscular build. He has dark brown hair and wears a goatee. His face is square shaped and he has high cheek-bones and blue eyes. He can appear very dark, showing only his blue eyes. He has large grey wings. He has a blue aura which he projects."

This is just some 20th century fantasy from a group called a group called The Joy of Satan (a neo-nazi Satanist website that thinks aliens programmed us to believe in God), as opposed to a medieval fantasy with a degree of consensus with Johann Weyer and other medieval demonologists. By the way, Satanism and demonology are not the same: before the 20th century, most demonologists would have said they were Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, and wrote grimoires under the assumption that their religion was unversal fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture"

I noticed that Malphas' appearance in Faith was removed in particular while every other item on the list stays, the reasoning being that it had no reliable source. I found this to be a bit of a loaded removal considering everything else on the list and that it was the only one with any source at all. Of course, I noticed after making my edit that Faith was still on the list, but the much more detailed one had been removed. That makes less sense to me, but I would be interested in the reasoning for this.

Anyhow, I figured I'd start the discussion here. What items should be removed from it, and which should stay? What items could be considered trivial? I think off the bat, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, and Castlevania are notable enough to keep. Delukiel (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]