User talk:Calebchiam

Archive 1 - 10 May 2009 - 1 Oct 2015

Renewed edit-warring
On the invulnerability page, the 95.112.196.103 user keeps ading in a fan theory they have, despite it never being discussed on the show and have been reverting anyone who tries to remove it. You told Empreyansmoke it was wrong to block me last week cus I still hadn't reverted three times, but this user has undid what everyones been undoing more than three times and could be blocked for continuing I think. (209.239.123.107 20:14, October 6, 2015 (UTC))
 * 209.239.123.107, look at the weaknesses section, it has already been discussed their. Leviathans can kill archangels, the majority of the user who contributed to the discussion agreed to that. 95.115.135.125 22:52, October 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * They're continuing to add their fan theory to the site, and have reverted other users removing their theory over five times today. Is this site about what some fans think can happen, or about what actually happened in the show Supernatural? (209.239.123.107 23:26, October 6, 2015 (UTC))
 * "95.115.135.125" << me, @209.239.123.107 This edit war can't go on, could you consider registering an account to discuss this in Empyrean's weaknesses blog ? As of now, the majority agreed that leviathans can kill archangels, it was highly implied on the show.  Lambda1 (talk) 23:58, October 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it was Lambda1 who reverted people who removed his fan theory 6 times, and I (209.239.123.107) only undid his fan fiction 3 times, 168.169.25.92 reverted 3 times, 46.165.220.93 reverted once and 104.194.26.170 reverted once, isn't Lambda1 going against the 3RR rule? Not once did he say anything on the talk page to try and resolve, but just kept adding his theory back in. (69.141.100.149 01:37, October 7, 2015 (UTC))
 * I contributed to the "Archangels are weak, don't you agree" blog and expressed, that I dont see how Archangels are superior to Leviathans, furthermore I followed Calebchiam's intervention a week ago and Emp created a blog in order to discuss this. Since the majority agreed (You are right, I should have supported my statement on this blog as well, would further increase the majority), the case seems to be closed. Lambda1 (talk) 02:26, October 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * "168.169.25.92", "46.165.220.93", "104.194.26.170" : probably one person using a Virtual Private Network or some other kind of Proxy, considering that they basically readded always the same. Lambda1 (talk) 02:31, October 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's the best to create a poll on the start page (Lambda1). 213.152.161.117 03:08, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Right. Okay, there are a few things we need to figure out:


 * 1) Was a proper consensus established here? If so, who was the discussion closed by and was there actually a group agreement? Consensus is not about the majority vote, so running a poll is just silly (not to mention highly abusable).
 * 2) If the above is true, why is there still edit-warring?
 * 3) Has the SPN Writer been verified? Word-of-mouth is inadequate, there has to be established and open evidence that anyone can countercheck for themselves if we are to start taking material from supposed SPN writers.

I'll look through what's happened and figure out the answers to these. Meanwhile, feel free to chip in and answer the above if you are fully up-to-date on the state of affairs at the moment (which I am not.) Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:42, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Empreyansmoke blocked an IP because he doesn't like them removing his fan theories about leviathans again. You said after 3 edits, and when I made only 3 edits removing his fan theory, 2 of which were reverting his fan theory additions, he blocked. This is not right, so can you say something to him? Im really surprised you can have an admin who tries to add theyre fan theories so much, and blocks because people disagree with the addition of fan fiction on this site. He even made more than 3 reverts himself, which is also wrong. (209.239.123.107 17:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC))

The IP I blocked had reverted the edit over three times, which issued a ban. Also, the majority of the users agree that this was not a "fan theory", and should be included in the articles. No, this doesn't reach a full consensus, but a couple people suggested we write a more neutral description of the weaknesses, which is what I was trying to do, but he kept reverting it, time after time. I am asking him to discuss this in the talk pages rather than reverting them every time, but he refuses. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 17:47, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I only reverted the information twice when Empreyansmoke decided that only he can edit the site because he is an admin and is better than anyone. Calebchiam, if you look at the edit history on dragons and Lilith, youll see that not only was this true, but Empreyansmoke reverted five times on both dragons and Lilith, and not once has they started a discussion about it on the talk page. If someones blocked it makes it a lot harder to discuss not adding fan theories to the site. I shouldnt even have to discuss not adding it because the person trying to add it should as that is what is changing. Empreyansmoke should not be able to do this just because he is an admin or has an account, which he keeps trying to use as a status mark that he is better, and cannot be wrong. That shouldnt matter, and is quite rude and derogatory towards others. Only what was shown on the show or said at a panel should matter. (69.64.58.255 18:00, October 10, 2015 (UTC))

I am not trying to say that I am better because I am an admin or because I have an account, all editors are equal. There was another unregistered user who reverted it more than three times, which I was referring to. Again, a full concerns us wasn't reached, but most people don't believe these to be "fan theories" and want them on the page. Since these two unregistered users don't agree, I am trying to add more neutral descriptions, which they keep reverting. Personally I think we should state it as facts, but since these couple of users get upset with that, I am trying to list it more neutral, but they won't let me. If they would like a different solution, I told them they should discuss it on talk pages rather than reverting it over and over.

I've removed the fan theory since the status quo before the speculation on dragons was added on September 19 did not mention angels or leviathans, which makes sense since it was not shown. Lilith's article did not mention leviathans either, but was added on September 27 in that article.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 18:38, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked the unregistered users and changed the weaknesses to possibilities, which neither suggests they aren't or are. The exact words on the pages are "Whether the Leviathans are a weakness to dragons can and is being debated." This is the only unbiased way to leave it until we reach a full consensus, which I am about to set up on another blog/talk page. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 18:41, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be stated at all since it is a fan theory unless there is a consensus about adding fan theories to pages. Calebchiam, you previously said that the articles should remain at the status quo where they were before these changes were made, but EmpreyanSmoke removes it to get his theory on the page, and tells others they should start a discussion about it, but doesn't start the discussion to add what he wants in the first place.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 18:46, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

It seems he's reverted the removal of his fan theory for an 8th time, and made it so only he can edit the page.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 18:49, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

He now locked both Phoenix and Zeus and added his fan theory back in so only an admin can remove it. Despite the fact that before the status quo before the fan theories were removed did not theorise that angels or leviathans can kill a Phoenix or Zeus. Are wikis like this about cooperating with others, or making it so that only a select few who have said they are better than others becuase they have been here longer can add in their own fan theories, which are not even solidly based in the actual show.SPNfan7908 (talk) 04:20, October 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, Empyrean, you should not have reverted the user's edits three times. The whole point of the rule is that both users involved in the edit war are at fault for not talking things through. Even if he continues to edit it in a way you disagree with, you should leave the new edit, make him justify his actions, and then revert it only after resolution. To block the other user involved while you take no repercussions is not the way to go. I'm glad you've unblocked them now.


 * SPNfan7908 also seems to be right in this case. The status quo of it not being mentioned (if he is right that the article was originally in this state) is supposed to be the state of the article until resolution. It is not for you to introduce what you think is a fair description of the weaknesses. Your proposal should be placed on the talk page where the issue is being discussed, so that other users may comment on it. Calebchiam Talk 14:29, October 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I've taken a look at the edits mentioned. Empyrean is being fair in his description of the current situation (i.e. that the issue is being debated), so SPNFan7908 please do acknowledge that. It is unfair to label it a 'fan theory'. However, SPNFan is right that it may very well not be mentioned at all. The statement, as it stands, elucidates very little, and SPNFan is technically right that the status quo (i.e. no mention for now) should remain. Calebchiam Talk 14:36, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

I actually respond to Lambda1 on teh Phoenix and Zeus talk pages, but after Empreayan reverted others changes 7 or 8 times and locked the page with his opinion that Phoenixs or Zeus can be killed by leviathans on their, and made it so no one else could touch it. And admins dont have to follow the no more than 3 revert rule? And I dont think its being unfair to Empreyan because if someone has admin tools like this it is not fair that they abuse them like he has and block people and pages so his opinion can not be removed. That isnt fair and doesnt really go well with making wikis be cooperative and actually deter other people from editing if an admin treats them like that, and it is not right that he thinks he is better than newer users or logged out users and only he should have a say. I also responded on his consensus of the weaknesses blog, which you may also want to see. I thought I did, but I think it was teh other weaknesses one or something theres a lot. This is the new one http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:EmpyreanSmoke/Consensus_of_the_Weaknesses--SPNfan7908 (talk) 15:06, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

To prevent yet another edit war I’m coming straight to you on the subject of adding speculation to articles. For the past 4 years I’ve been editing here, I’ve been under the impression there was to be no speculation added; only facts. All of the sudden Empyrean is saying speculation has always been allowed to be put under the trivia section. This doesn’t make sense to me. For example I tried to remove a paragraph about the darkness possibly having influenced the leviathans. The show never addressed this, therefore I feel it shouldn’t be mentioned anywhere on the page. Another example on Eve’s page someone mentions she could have been the first leviathan. Again none of these points were mentioned or addressed on the show. Last year, I constantly kept removing speculation from the trivia on Gabriel’s page as a user kept adding that the possibility that he had a daughter. You see what I’m getting at here? For as long as I’ve been a user, whenever I’ve come across an article that has speculation I’ve quickly removed it. Are we allowing speculation to stay all together on the wiki now or did I miss something? --Bkshadows (talk)

No problem and Thank you for quickly settling the matter. Cheers indeed! --Bkshadows (talk)

Can you please show me the policy where it states we must revert the article to how it was before the debate started? Because I think that is an unfair way to solve the problem. Taking it off the page would reflect one sides argument instead of staying unbiased. Thanks. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 20:19, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Most of the articles that I come across have speculation on their trivia section, so thank you for clarifying. I'll try to remove all the speculation off the pages entirely. By the way, I left you a message about how to unbiasly edit the pages of debate, so please get back to me. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:27, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

This is my one and my only I.P. Just because multiple people disagree with you, that doesn't mean they're the same person. Have you ever thought that if multiple people disagree with you, not just one, but multiple people, maybe you're wrong? 168.169.25.92 15:10, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Omnipotence page
Hey Calebchiam, the user Abdelfadeel continues to remove one sentence "Could God solve an unsolvable mathematical equation" from the omnipotence page. After some edit warring I tried to resolve the conflict by opening a discussion on the respective talk page, trying to explain why resolving such an equation is basically the same as lifting an unliftable stone, but he ignores this attempt. I can't further explain this topic to him without repeating myself and no other user is involved so far. Could you please intervene in some way ? Lambda1 (talk) 02:07, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as in the show the rules of math would stem from God, as he created the laws that dictate the physical universe, no math problem would be unsolvable to him. And God being able to, say, make an immovable stone and then move it, makes no sense, and should be payed no mind. That's not what omnipotence means, anyway; it means to be able to do anything that is non-contradictory, such as traversing the omniverse 800,000 trillion times in an instant. However, God cannot makes square circles, or make 99 + 1 = 101, etc. This is really simple stuff. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:22 AM, October 27th 2015
 * That's not right, math has nothing to do with physics, it's just used in physics. "99+1 = 101" is nothing fundamental in math, either is squaring a circle. Most people have a false understanding of math, because what's teached in the schools (simplistic, trivial basic algebra) highly differs from what's teached in the university (bare bones proving of theorems builed on axioms) Mathematical theorems are implicated from the axioms of set theory with predicate logic as meta language for deduction. People always think that 1+1 = 2 would be something you can't change, such statements are only true in certain sets (Real Numbers, Complex numbers,...), in the finite field F_2  1+1 = 0 is a true statement. However, a really simple a fundamental equation like "x = not x" (And this is indeed much more fundamental than 1+1 = 2) is always unsolvable, it is contradictionary. I explained this on the Omnipotence page. Traversing the multiverse (that's the proper term, only comic book readers use "omniverse" because they seem to don't understand or just ignore set theory) 800000*10^12 times doesn't contradict fundamental logic, so it's fine. Lambda1 (talk) 09:06, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Okay, I've had to study the epistemology of mathematics, so I suppose I know a thing or two about this. Lambda is actually somewhat right that there are other possible systems of mathematics where 1 and 1 is equal to something other than 2. Think of a world of clouds, where 1 + 1 = 1, or a world of plasma vortices, where one meeting another generates a third in its wake, 1 + 1 = 3. Our mathematical system of 1 + 1 = 2 is by no means, *the* mathematical system - a sore point for mathematicians ever since discoveries such as Godel's incompleteness theorem and the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry a description of reality (see Riemannian geometry). And yes, mathematics is often utilised in physics, but the epistemological roots of both fields are as different as light and day, as any philosopher will tell you.


 * As for whether God could solve an unsolvable mathematical equation...well, we really need to understand Abdelfadeel's reason for removing the sentence. I can only guess, but perhaps the phrasing might be improved? 'Can God prove an unprovable theorem?' - Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us that in any formal mathematical system, there will be mathematical statements that are not provable. But from your explanation on the talk page, it sounds like you were talking less about this and more about positives and their direct opposites (x = the negation of x), which yes, I can see the parallels to the lifting of an unliftable stone. If Abdelfadeel refuses to engage in discussion and justify his removal, then I would suggest leaving a warning on his talk page that continued removal will result in a request for a block. By default, contributing to a Wiki means being willing to justify what you're contributing, and a refusal to do so is simply harmful to collaboration. If he understands that, he should be willing to reply. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 09:20, October 29, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that physics and mathematics have the same roots, so saying that they have nothing to do with each other was a bit inaccurate from me. However, there are indeed formal system in which any statement can be proven both semantically and syntactically, especially in first order logic, as there is not only Godel's incompleteness theorem, but also a completeness theorem . I choosed the "x = not x" example because it is rather easy to understand, I could have also written "Could God prove any statement in any formal system (In regarding of Godel's incompleteness theorems)?", but that would be much harder to understand for users unfamiliar with math. Abdelfadeel has stopped to remove this sentence after I left you the message, I hope he doesn't start to remove it again without arguing about. We already have both definitions of omnipotence on the page and it is explained why the first one leads to logical contradictions, so both sides should be satisfied. Thanks for your involvement ! Lambda1 (talk) 14:58, October 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay great! Neat point about his completeness theorem, fair enough. Calebchiam Talk 15:13, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if God can solve it or not, it's irrelevant because it doesn't contradict itself. If he made it then it would. For example, if God can create an unsolvable equation then he isn't fully omnipotent because he can't solve it, if God can solve it, he's not fully omnipotent because he can't create an unsolvable equation. If he didn't actually make the equation, it doesn't matter if he can solve it or not, (though if he can't he's not omnipotent) it doesn't contradict itself.

Re: Policy enforcement
Hi Caleb. When you get the chance, I could really use some help with explaining the policies of this wikia to a number of anonymous editors. I have tried to explain and rephrase over and over but they seem very adamant on insisting to put statements that are [1] not fully supported by canon and [2] only tangentially relevant to a certain article (why must we keep putting leviathan information on a page about archangels?). Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 17:04, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Well I was going to say it's the usual suspect--the archangels vs leviathan case but apparently the most recent episodes already confirmed that one is superior, so I guess it's a moot point now. FTWinchester (talk) 09:44, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

SeraphLucifer.
I am having problems with the user known as SeraphLucifer. He broke the three revert rule. He keeps adding non-cannon information. He keeps saying Archangels can kill knights of hell. He doesn't even say possibly, to imply they possibly can, yet leaving the possibility they can't. He is saying they can for certain even though we've never seen a knight of hell be killed by anything but the 1st blade. I've repeatedly warned him to stop and put my reasoning for it. He refuses and just undoes my edits without argument whatsoever. His only argument, was something along the lines of "In the lore it says the archangels could kill them."

There are two major problems with this argument. The first being: the lore greatly differs from the show. For example Lucifer is a Cherub in the lore and Michael is a seraph. Yet, in the show, both are archangels. This is just one of many differences.

Number 2: Even if we do give him the benefit of the doubt. The Knights were created by the writers purely for plot. Their is absolutely no lore on The Knights whatsoever. So that's obviously a lie.

Please ban him as it is corrupting the wikia. Thank you.172.101.67.105 22:27, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

If someone is blocked, there not allowed to just use another computer to get around it right. Because when Abdelfadeel forgets to sign on he is 168.169.25.92, which is blocked, but Abdelfadeel was not. When you compare 168.169.25.92 with this new IP 172.101.67.105, it's to like the same area, so Abdelfadeel is using it when he again forgets to sign in at his house to avoid the block on the other IP he uses. Abdelfadeel and Seraphlucifer are both acting childish, but Abdelfadeel is blocked as 168.169.25.92 and going around it still. I see that other wikis don't let this happen maybe peopls blocks aren't held if the person ignores the admin here? 66.87.117.121 02:47, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me
Can I ask you for something?AlexHoskins (talk) 14:07, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Re:Excuse me
When you are not busy, could you send this PNG photo in the Heroes Wiki (hero.wikia.com)? I'd do it on my own, but my iPad doesn't download PNG photos. Sorry.--AlexHoskins (talk) 03:49, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Death
Hello, the admin EmpyreanSmoke deleted my Death II page without any argumentation, though it was implied in the show that there is a new Death, especially by this statement of the reaper Billie: "You and Dean Dying and coming back again and again. The old death thought it was funny. But now there's one hard, fast rule in this universe. What lives...dies." Furthermore she said she had a message to deliver (to Sam and Dean). Therefore it is somewhat implied that there is a new Death. I am not the only one who sees it that way, actually as the episode aired, a lot of people talked about the new Death on imbd. It would be fine if EmpyreanSmoke would start argueing about it. 82.113.121.25 21:19, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed when the episode aired. In fact, it was added to the death page that there was a new death. After discussing it was concluded that there was really nothing supporting that a new death had arose. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 21:46, November 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, it wasn't discussed at all. I can only see one reference on the talk page of the Death article and in the page history: "(cur | prev) 05:03, October 15, 2015‎ EmpyreanSmoke (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,664 bytes) (-463)‎ . . (nothing indicated that there is a new death. Billie was saying that when Death was alive, he let it slide, but now that he is gone, the reapers go by a new rule)" you deleted any reference to the new Death. Just because it is your personal opinion doesn't make it right. Reapers are just the servants of Death and follow his orders mostly (since we knew that there a rogue reapers), they won't decide to change the rules on their own. 89.204.154.46 22:39, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

EmpyreanSmoke Ban
Hello Calebchiam, would you also share your thoughts regarding http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Lambda1/EmpyreanSmoke_Admin_right_removal_and_infinite_ban Lambda1 (talk) 22:12, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

I do have a question. If EmpyreanSmoke is blocked and removed as an admin. Do you have any ideas for a replacement?&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 03:01, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

I understand now. As for blocking him. I read your comment. I agree a lot of what you are saying. Admins get a LOT of flak. I get it too, and only start blocking rude or disruptive members and usual for a week, for them to cool down. But I think EmpyreanSmoke should get a longer block than 1-2 weeks. A month would be better in my opinion. Adminship is usually thankless yes. But also admins must be held to higher standard. He should've know what he signed up for. I was suspicious of the Q&A and am ashamed I let go on this long. However I will wait for the consensus. Thanks for clearing up on wikia protocol.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 03:17, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Thank you for adding your two cents. Is there someplace that we can talk in private? I realize that you probably won't want to give out your social media information, but I would like to talk to you about this in private. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:32, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikia Involvement
Hi, it was my idea to involve the wikia staff, I mentioned the reason on the blog. Lambda1 (talk) 02:42, November 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Good morning, I guess you haven't recognized my response to your statement yet http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Lambda1/EmpyreanSmoke_Admin_right_removal_and_infinite_ban#comm-42812 Lambda1 (talk) 10:08, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes - sorry, as I added EmpyreanSmokes quotes, I just wanted to label it as a "minor edit", it seems I clicked on that "Commenting" checkbox as well, I changed it back. Lambda1 (talk) 13:40, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

EmpyreanSmoke
I couldn't help but notice you talking to Empyreansmoke. He's not here anymore. I don't even think he's aware he was unblocked. 168.169.25.92 00:57, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Past tense
First ... thank you for the warm welcome.

Shall all articles be changed in past tense? even the ones which won't change like symbols? --X47 (talk) 01:53, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

RecurringCharacters template
Hello Calebchiam, could you please add the infobox category to the template http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Template:RecurringCharacters, because this template has no category and since a lot of our articles use this template, we have many http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Insights/pageswithoutinfobox -- unnecessarily so. Probably, this also decreases the WAM index of this wiki. --Lambda1 (talk) 23:12, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * Good evening, thanks for taking care of the templates ! I also locked the blog now, you are right - the discussion is over and any other topics belong to their respective places. --Lambda1 (talk) 04:22, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Adminship
What's the verdict on Emp? Also, we're gonna need more admins? Can we recommend some please?

Please ban this user for corrupting the wikia
http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.130.159.174 SeraphLucifer (talk) 20:29, December 7, 2015 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Empryean's ban
Hey Calebchiam. I already left a message about this for Twilight Despair, but as you were the one to block Empryeansmoke, you might want to know as well. While you blocked him for two months, he is ban evading with this IP address, 97.84.78.212 (proof here, and likely with this proxy located nearby him as well 166.216.157.87. Also, he was rewriting an article into present tense, which is not according to policy, and adding speculation to the article and trivia section (which you previously told him should not be done). Trip391 (talk) 21:39, December 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw you blocked Empryean's two IPs, but can you also undo the eight revisions he added back in here? I would, but I don't want to break the three-revert rule myself. Trip391 (talk) 07:50, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Mobile
Hey, Caleb! Do you know any wikia staff member we could talk to about on the mobile app? I'm kind of disappointed I could not use it to log-in and edit articles. It's basically just a reader. I wanted to talk to them if we could somehow allow us to do those things. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 03:57, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

All right. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 12:05, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Bot request
Hello. I'm a bureaucrat at the Ben 10 wiki, and I'm here to help this wiki become as good as the series. I'll be editing a lot during the next few weeks, and I'd like to know if the admins here would approve of my request for a bot. Although a bot requires community approval, and not just admin approval, I think it proper to ask you guys first. I already use a bot on the Ben 10 wiki, and you can check my work there if you'd like.

Orion ( T - B -C) 07:33, January 26, 2016 (UTC)


 * These are some of the tasks I want to perform with the bot:
 * Removing redirects from articles. By this, I mean replacing links to, say, "Dean" with links to "Dean Winchester". The same would go for double redirects.
 * Removing red links.
 * Removing broken file links.
 * Fixing grammar and typos. Some go by unnoticed by humans, but the bot can find them. I'd make sure the corrections were actual corrections, obviously, since some of the words on the wiki might not exist in its database.
 * Basically anything that requires small, repetitive edits across nearly every article. That's what bots excel at. Depending on how many pages there are on the wiki and how many bear any of these things, it might take more or less time to do this across the whole wiki, and I'd have to do it at least two or three times in a row, to keep up with new edits.


 * That said, I want to emphasize that if you (admins) aren't comfortable with my usage of a bot, you can do it yourselves. The actual operation of a bot is fairly simple once you get the hang of it.


 * Orion ( T - B -C) 15:05, January 31, 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Wikia, bot requests have to go through them and only after getting community approval, unless you've already requested (and gained) the right to add the bot flag to an account. If you have, the account is BlazikenBot.


 * Orion ( T - B -C) 05:44, February 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you guys have a forum, or should I just create a blog?


 * Orion ( T - B -C) 10:12, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Unorganized Templates
Hi, Caleb! I've been trying to get our templates sorted out and I saw some templates, "T", "C", "Clr", etc. but I don't see the discussions for their purposes. I'm really inclined to just delete them but I wanted to make sure they are not used before I do. FTWinchester (talk) 13:02, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I thought there was a reason why they stayed like that for so long. Good to know I asked you first. I just wish it gave us some notice at elast on the exact function. I'm not exactly a coding master but I'll see what I can do. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 13:42, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural Season 11 CCA
Hey! I'm reaching out to see if you’d be interested in a Community Choice Awards for the 11th Season of Supernatural? I noticed you did one for Season 10 and that it was well received by the community. If so, it would also be great to get admin input on categories and nominations since you guys are experts on the show and its characters. Let me know if you’re interested! Witnessme (talk) 19:07, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Hi again! Just wanted to check in and see if you'd considered my offer of creating a CCA for this wikia. Let me know! Witnessme (talk) 18:42, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bureaucracy + rfa
Hi Caleb. I hope you're doing fine. I hope you could log in ASAP as without any other active Beaurocrats, we are unable to nominate new admins to replace those who haven't been online for the longest time. Currently, there is one active rfa and we are unable to finalize the nomination without an input from a bcrat. Thanks. Cheers. FTWinchester (talk) 17:38, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. I knew we could count on you. And yeah, I wanted to message you early because if I message you on the last day and you didn't respond right away, I can already imagine the shitstorm that will happen. Remember Empyrean bypassing you? That was a mess. Plus, I won't ever actively advocate for any move that would demote you as you know most about the wiki's technicalities more than all other admins combined. Anyway, thanks again for weighing in, even for the time being. FTWinchester (talk) 11:40, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, caleb! Friendly reminder that Zane's rfa ends tomorrow. Please review accordingly as soon as you get the chance. FTWinchester (talk) 23:11, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope to earn your trust. I know your concerned that i'l go all evil emperor on the wiki, but i'l strive to be be a servant to community consensus. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:18, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey Caleb, hope you are fine... I also decided to nominate myself as a canditate to sysop election. What should I do? SeraphLucifer (talk) 18:14, June 27, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

First issue.
I discovered I can't edit the "on the wiki" tab, and post a list of staff, a place to report and add a link to the policies. So I propose the creation of a page called the Admin Noticeboard which we can create links too, at the top of our talkpages. Its not my first choice, but it'll work. Opinions? Zane T 69 (talk) 03:51, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

I created it. It seems i'l have to settle for less, since its beyond my coding ability. What I have so far, is functional, if not my best. Zane T 69 (talk) 04:36, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, do you want me to delete pictures people uploaded to the wiki for personal uses? Per your comment here.Zane T 69 (talk) 21:21, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

I guess I will delete the photos, I'm not able to enact my other ideas. This will be a semi constructive use of my admin powers. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:05, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

I researched it, and its impossible, the WikiNav is at its limit. Once my admin noticeboard gets popular that'll help a lot. I encourage you to post a link to it, at the top of your userpage and follow the noticeboard. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:06, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

How are rollbacks promoted/elected? Zane T 69 (talk) 00:29, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Caleb. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:03, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest people contact you to request the rights? I'd just like the wiki to have more people combating vandalism, before Supernatural comes back on. That and I have a few ideas about, who would make good rollbacks. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:10, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

Hey. When you get a chance, can you give your opinion on this. An unregistered user made trouble, but raised a good point. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:10, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Adminship
Thanks Caleb for your good wishes. I'll try to do my best but, currently I have a broken arm. I won't be able to edit much unfortunately. SeraphLucifer (talk) 12:21, July 6, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Hi Caleb,

I made an edit on the "Long-Distance Call" page (S03E14). I added three pieces of trivia, not realising that I was adding them to the Continuity section of that page. As I'm new to this can you explain how I create a Trivia heading so I can cut and paste the information into it.

Many thanks

Uremawife Nowdave (talk) 02:20, July 8, 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural App
Hey Calebchiam! I just wanted to give you a heads up that we will be temporarily removing the Supernatural app promo banner in the right rail on the main page. We're removing it because of a minor technical issue and are hoping to have them restored in a week or so. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have about this! Witnessme (talk) 17:27, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Rollback request
Hello. I was told to contact you to request rollback rights, and I would love to have them. It'd make it much more easier for me to undo annoying vandalism. I'm here to help, and rollback rights will help alot Gabriel456 (talk) 14:45, August 12, 2016 (UTC)

Understood :) and thanks ^_^ Gabriel456 (talk) 14:08, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Hi-Zane T 69 suggested that i ask you about acquiring rollback rights. i admit i'm not quite sure what all that entails, but i'll help if i can. thanks.Reka12452 (talk) 16:51, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

OK and thanks :)Reka12452 (talk) 15:53, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Blocking
Hey Caleb, thanks for informing me, my bad. SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:24, September 8, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

How long should I block someone who keeps uploading fanon videos? I gave him a polite we don't allow that warning, he did it again, so I gave him an official warning. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:39, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, so soon. If he doesn't heed this warning, I'll block him for three days. And I know it's not malicious. But I can't exactly have him running around breaking that rule, and have others follow his example, it might create an unmanageable problem. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:17, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Can you give your opinion on this matter? The show will be back on soon, I'd like it handled before then. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:25, September 26, 2016 (UTC)

Wikia wants the wiki to become portable, thought I'd personally message you, since the guy overlooked you. Blog Page Zane T 69 (talk) 19:40, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

So, you approve of implementation? Zane T 69 (talk) 15:55, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, earlier a user created an account named Bitchroast, I gave her an infinite ban and explained why. The problem is wiki is automatically checking "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address." I've tried fixing it, multiple times, I decided to come to you for help. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:53, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I suggested she apply for a name change, or create another account. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:05, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I just felt like I personally failed one of the wikis people. Zane T 69 (talk) 14:57, October 16, 2016 (UTC)

Would it be okay, if I add the "LockOldBlogs" feature? It would prevent commenting on them after a certain time period, i'm personally leaning towards 60 days. It would make management of the blogs easier on ranked users on our wiki. The alternative is let users keep resurrecting dead discussion, and create more area to manage for us, or manually locking commenting on older pages. Which would be a massive workload. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:39, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Did you see the message above this? Zane T 69 (talk) 16:26, October 30, 2016 (UTC)

I tried adding it, I wasn't sure how to; even while reading the instructions. And I didn't wanna break the wiki. So I'll see if Seraph, TD5 or FTW can add it. If not, I guess I'll wait till you get spare time. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:51, November 4, 2016 (UTC)

Do user signatures violate the "Not a webhost" rule? It doesn't have pictures in it not for articles, but I'm just making sure. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:51, November 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for getting back to me so soon. Did you see my message regarding my failure to add the LockOldBlogs feature? Seraph didn't think he could add it. If you get some free time, could you add it? Zane T 69 (talk) 02:31, November 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm sorry, I lack the coding skill to install it myself. I couldn't even find where I was suppose to put the code. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:42, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

Future Content
Hey Caleb, hope you are doing fine. I wanted to ask you something, some users add photos, informations and create new pages about upcoming episodes. If they aren't aired, should I delete those contents? SeraphLucifer (talk) 16:06, September 21, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Shared Images
Hello Calebchiam :)

I'm from the German Supernatural Wiki and I have a question. There is a feature at Wikia which is called Shared images. This feature allows a wiki to use the images of another wiki. You've got a great wiki and a lot of pictures so we'd like to ask if you would mind if we activate that feature so we can use your images too. That would be great because we don't have to download and upload the images again.

If you're not responsible for such things I could also write to one of the other admins of your wiki. And sorry if my english is bad xD

Kind regards

~ Vanyar ~ (talk) 12:34, October 3, 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't they just export the Images? Zane T 69 (talk) 14:30, October 6, 2016 (UTC)

I mean with Special:Export. They can just select the category "Images" and they can get all of them, without demoting us to a hosting site. This gives them copies of all of our images, I just distrust this new feature. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:40, October 7, 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural Spiff
Hey! I wanted to reach out and offer to spiff this wiki. I'd create a new wordmark and background skin, add an RSS feed, and social media widgets. Anything I change is subject to your approval and can be reverted back if you don't like it. Let me know what you think! Witnessme (talk)

Actor template
Hi, Caleb- I recently tried to use the Actor template (for Lexa Doig), but the template apparently has the "Vampire Diaries Cast" category hard-wired into it, so that you can't even remove it in VisualEditor like you would be able to normally. I tried to edit the template, but was unsuccessful. I thought it might 'fix' with the move to portable templates, but no deal. Could you fix that? As far as i can tell, there are currently only 5 actor pages that employ the Actor template on the wiki and i believe only 2 of them appeared in Vampire Diaries. Thanks for any help! :)Reka12452 (talk) 17:51, October 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello - please disregard above; i saw something i missed the first time and corrected it. :)Reka12452 (talk) 10:42, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural Spiff Update
Hi there! Here is an example of the new wordmark and background skin.

Also here is what the Twitter widget and RSS feed would look like.



News Feed: https://news.google.com/news/feeds?gl=en&gl=us&q=cw+supernatural&um=1&ie=UTF-8&output=rss|charset=UTF-8|short|date|max=5

Let me know what you think! PS: The twitter widget, once on the main page, won't be that wide. Witnessme (talk) 15:48, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

Contact
Hey Caleb, I hope you are doing well... I just wonder if I could contact you on any other sites besides the wiki. If yes could you write me on chat? Thanks. SeraphLucifer (talk) 22:43, October 28, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Supernatural Spiff Update (Part 2)
News  Refresh  See More    http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&biw=1279&bih=616&q=supernatural&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&output=rss|charset=UTF-8|short|date|max=8

Is this closer to what you had in mind? Witnessme (talk) 17:25, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! I can't wait to hear what they have to say! :) Witnessme (talk) 16:05, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

News
Magda Peterson on the talk page it got a little heated. And I thought by one of the contributors I was accused of locking page I didn't locked. But that was a miscommunication.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 03:44, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue anymore. We understand it was a miss communication.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 04:17, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Getting Rollback Rights
I was wondering if I could get Rollback rights??? Zane T 69 suggested I try. BTW: I had Rollback on the Kane Chronicles Wiki before it got merged into the Riordan Wiki and hold the rank of Admin on the Gears of War Wiki. Still not sure how that last one happened though!!! I was promoted a few years ago and it wasn't a rank I had ever sought there.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 05:00, November 5, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. And no problem, I definitely get that. Like I said, I've had that status before and currently hold the status of Admin on another Wiki so I understand well. This is the only time I've actively sought a higher ranking though. Maybe I could work my way up to Admin here too??? That would be cool, but again, I don't know what that would take. As you'll see though, I've only ever done constructive edits on here and have been building character pages recently for book characters and other characters who don't have one yet.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 03:18, November 6, 2016 (UTC)