Too much speculation and personal opinion

Except it was based on your opinion because you had to formulate that conclusion from somewhere (and I laugh at the claims of a justified vote when you didn't consult anyone on it, didn't verify votes nor wait for responses before acting on it). You should care what people on IRC have to say because they're contributors like you and some of them are even wiki staff (in fact, some of them are people who have told you what to do and what not do do). To say you don't care is just displaying your own self-serving nature, it was clear from the beginning that I was acting as their representative and letting their voice be heard through me. Furthermore you can't just dismiss them and then turn around to say that I should call them here (especially when fluid text would be more beneficial to this situation than static conversation). I brought your past history into this because despite your claim otherwise it's exactly what I "notice" that you're doing here. So no, you haven't been taking that advice. You can't say that Lugh was disproved as a Milletian in when it's all your speculation because that's not proof.

You're still ignoring parts of the argument for your own benefit. To repeat what I said in my very last post, the things you've been bringing up aren't FACT: [being] is a god. It's "Fact: [person] said [being] was a god.". It's too circumstantial to be called "proof" which is what I said earlier regarding solid proof. What we think is relevant because it helps us discern between these differences which you can't seem to be able to see. Context is important and we can't leave it out because context also carries meaning (this is ignoring that Corple is very clearly called a mortal and that's not contextual). It's most definitely not irrelevant, to say so just displays a lack of understanding of language, communication and meaning. You haven't been able to display "Fact: [being] is a god" which is what I said from the beginning. It's all conjecture and speculation on unreliable testimony which seemingly contradicts other information given in game. Since the beginning I've maintained and still say that no one has been able to conclusively say that [being] is a god. Without that you lack justification to say that, to do otherwise is (again) misleading and misinforming. The purpose of the wiki is to accurately inform, language etiquette says we're to do this as efficiently as possible. You appear to display interest in neither of these. If you think that's unfair of me to say then show me wrong.