Hi, welcome to Wikipedia.
I notice you have been reverting the Satanism article again and again. Please review a couple of our policies, including Reliable sources, neutral point of view, and Verifiability. You need to give a source for your edit, and it doesn't belong in the lead anyway: the lead defines the subject of the article. Since you haven't been warned about the three-revert rule I'm not going to block you or the other side for edit-warring, but please discuss your changes on the talk page first. You may request unprotection once you have found a consensus version. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussions should be done on the page Talk:Satanism, not on the administrator's talk page.
Yes, you did supply the source on 16th century satanism as a fiction invented by the Catholic Church. I incorporated this into the article under an appropriate subsection. What I'm not understanding is how the 16th century use of the term should overrule the modern use of the term as the lead for the article; there is no sensible justification for that. You also seem to be uninformed on the history of Satanism as a modern religion; I suggest reading the pages Church of Satan, The Satanic Bible, and Anton Szandor LaVey prior to further edits, to get a perspective on how this has become a valid modern religion as opposed to a historic moniker suggesting the person is merely evil. I will agree that the historic perspective on Satanism perhaps deserves mention, and I've created a subsection precisely for that, but everything not only has to be sourced, but it has to be done according to format policy. Your own POV does not mean that you can put this right in the lead of the article when it does not fit the rest of the article to do so.