Hey, I'm Gyro of the wiki's auditing team. I saw that you were a supporter of the verse 'Akira'. The verse has several problems, and I was wondering if you were able to fix them.
There are currently no scans to back up tier 2 ratings, and they're based off a big bang feat which can be interpreted as 3-A anyway. Relavistic+ reactions are based off a laser which doesn't seem to meet light standards (being called light isn't enough to be SoL). Two profiles hardly have justifications (Yamagata and Kaisuke), and most abilities in general are unexplained (This isn't such a problem for stuff like energy projection, but more extraordinary abilities like matter manipulation should be at least somewhat explained).
I’m not sure if I have time to reread the entire comic to work on a verse at the moment, due to school, in addition to lack of interest. I have the verse page saved in case I want to come back to it later.
The mythology profiles on VBW are all unreliable garbage without exception. To fix this, we need:
1. Citations for every supposed feat, description, or ability in mythology, from reputable sources on ancient or modern mythologies (primary sources, of course, being the best). If we're quoting primary mythological texts (such as the Iliad) directly, then the specific translator of the text should be noted as well. The citations should obviously have links.
2. Detailed explanations for the cosmology of each mythology. I don't want to have to hear about 4-B Norns or the High 1-B Hindu-Buddhist multiverse without a proper explanation as to why.
3. The separation of "normal" and "abnormal" conceptions of various mythological figures into multiple keys (e.g. no conflating Hellenistic Dionysus with Orphic Dionysus and Dionysiaca Dionysus, as the character profile does)
4. A standard of dealing with the various names, titles, and epithets of mythological figures. In ancient cultures, such names, titles, and epithets were extremely important theologically speaking.
5. A standard of dealing with various "high-concept" descriptions of deities (I.e. descriptions of them being "exalted beyond the heavens" or "infinite and eternal" or "spaceless and timeless"). Should we take them at face-value (as the ancient cultures most likely did, for the most part), or should we consider them as mostly hyperbole, or should be try to "contextualize" them in a modern philosophical context?
6. A standard of dealing with ancient theologies, especially for mythologies without a specific "canon" (like classical mythology). I don't understand why we should have to consider Amaterasu as equal to Amenominakanushi based on an unnamed and unsourced old Japanese religious text that doesn't even seem to exist.
To clarify, quite long ago the trolls uploaded several hundred porn videos to various sites with the usernames of myself and other members of this wiki, so they would show up in a Google search, and now my fellow Community Council member Love Robin has offered to help out to get rid of them via DMCA notices, but she wants to handle all of the takedowns in one go, and needs our authorisations in order to do so.
This would be for your previous username, God-King Superman77.