User talk:Orion Invictus

Welcome
Hi, welcome to Supernatural Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Pestilence page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Kyle Nin (Talk) 21:20, October 29, 2010

Hey
Sorry I missed your message. I normally don't get on a chat, what you needed to talk about?&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 20:09, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

Can you leave me a message about it? I can't get on the chat today.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 20:58, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

Hey
Ok I'll be on in 20 mins. But can only stay on for ten minutes.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 21:32, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bots
Calebchiam would be the best guy to talk to about these matters. Although I have not come across an explicit rule against bots, I do not have the experience Caleb has. FTWinchester (talk) 03:55, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

If it means the betterment of the wiki, then I'm all for it. Although I've seen that bots have a tendency to overwhelm a Wiki's Activity page. We might probably miss some user's vandalism or major changes on a high traffic page. RaghavD "I'm a CLASSIC man"  05:55, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that. RaghavD "I'm a CLASSIC man"  10:07, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Oh and Dean doesn't call Tessa an angel sarcastically. It's point blank. Reapers are angels. Even if was sarcastic, it doesn't change the fact that in SPN, Reapers are angels. I hate it too. But that's canon now. RaghavD "I'm a CLASSIC man"  10:10, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Reaper consensus
According to our wikia policy Supernatural Wiki:Consensus, silence is the weakest for of consensus.

"In some cases, consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident. One can find out whether an edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others. However, in discussions regarding policy change, silence may not necessarily imply consent."

As nobody complained about it for over a year, the current consensus is that reapers are angels. You might want to re- start the discussion and bring your arguements into the debate. Lambda1 (talk) 11:36, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * There were two groups, one supporting that reapers are angels, and another one who were against this classification of reapers. http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Angels#Angels_and_reapers.3F The conversation did not only took place on the reapers page. However, as nobody complained about it for over a year, that's the current consensus. Feel free to bring in your arguments, that might leed to a more profound consensus. Lambda1 (talk) 11:47, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Reapers + Retcons
Hey, man. Don't get me wrong. Really. I hate the retcons as much as you do. But the whole point of this wiki is to stick to canon. Everything else we want to think otherwise we have to keep in out blogs (that's why I have many blogs full of rants). I'm just upholding the wiki's rules. FTWinchester (talk) 13:13, January 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I said on the Reapers talk page, I have no desire to impose my views or preferences on any articles. I had reason to doubt Glass's statement's validity. Some of those reasons still exist, but the writers decide everything on the show; not us (fans). What they say goes.


 * Orion ( T - B -C) 13:17, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * I did have my doubts as well, and I really wish that the fan response was double or even triple so that they could have realized how huge the mistake they did. FTWinchester (talk) 13:19, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish writers in general were as well-versed in their work as the fans. It's like they don't even watch their own shows.
 * Orion ( T - B -C) 13:22, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Not different at all, in fact what i was trying to say is that I completely agree with you. By all means if you find any speculation especially statements using words like possibly or most likely, remove it. I've been doing it for years. If anyone gives you trouble go to the talk page and then the admins if it continues to be a problem. Bkshadows (talk)

Re:Bot request
Hi. Just letting you know I've seen your message, and I'll need a while to check out the specs of this request - currently caught up in other matters. Thanks for your work! Calebchiam Talk 04:13, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, could you state exactly what kind of tasks you would like to automate using the bot? Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 14:42, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've handled bot requests so I'm aware of this actually. I just wanted to know what tasks you had in mind. Bot account username? I'll go ahead and grant you the rights. Calebchiam Talk 03:38, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I'd forgotten that the special allowances 'coats get on the RuneScape Wiki aren't universal. In any case, not that I speak on behalf of Supernatural Wiki, but I don't think there'll be any opposition to your running a bot for said tasks. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:40, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Forum:The Impala Calebchiam Talk 04:43, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Speculation
First, I appreciate your dedication to upholding what is canon. Second, i would like to ask if you could tell me which admin was that?

As for the actual speculation on articles--I am actively trying to change and remove the speculations here. Even before I was an admin, I have been digging up old debates and challenging falsely--"established" information in the articles if I thought it was not supported by canon.

I have been advocating the use of reference tags and citations to ensure our articles are supported by canon and to avoid adding fan speculation. I have also suggested several times in many talk pgaes how to phrase character claims that are dubious or are seemingly contradicted by other parts of the canon.

What you must understand is that not only is it difficult for just the admins to check and recheck every article we have--we also have other functions to carry out. For example, I am also caught up in categorizing articles, fixing broken links, orphan pages, dead ends, organizing templates, etc. It's overwhelming for me to perform my admin duties on top of being an article contributor. And like I said, my admin duties are not limited to just checking articles for speculation. I can not change this all by myself. I need the help of other admins and the community. FTWinchester (talk) 23:31, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hey Blaziken, you left a link on my talk page, as I understood its about removing speculations right? Couldn't check much... Can you explain me? I'd like to be helpful. SeraphLucifer (talk) 14:20, February 8, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I am willing to help then SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:31, February 8, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Except there is no evidence to say the Ark was made before the flood. So listing the trivia that Hands of God were thought unlikely, to survive the flood or the 20th century isn't speculation. Its what Lucifer said. Plus listing the Ark made before the flood when it wasn't specific on which were made when, is speculation. Because of the 20th Century reference. If Lucifer said ONLY the flood, than the Ark could have only been made before the flood.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 13:49, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

Interpreting facts to support your own conclusions is just shy of speculations. Write it as most seemed to predate the flood, but leaves some from for a possiblity that some might have been made after it. Lucifer's quote wasn't exact.... like a lot of this series. But he didn't say something like this. I didn't think any had survived the flood. This leaves unbias towards both conclusions.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 15:55, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

Castiel said that only Lucifer could time travel thus implying that time travel required wings.Also Tamiel was able to teleport which needs wings so he should at least be listed as having wings.For the rest of the angels and archangels you are probably right ,we should wait and see.Kkapoios (talk) 17:44, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Apportation
Lucifer Apported Sam, Dean, and Castiel in the temp cage with him. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 21:09, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Rowena did sabotage the spell, so that Lucifer could use his powers. Hell is not Lucifer's domain in the sense that it grants him excess power. God was the one who created Hell, and he created it to serve as a prison. It is Lucifer's domain now in the sense that he is ruling over it, but he doesn't have any extra abilities there. Its not that Lucifer doesn't trust the demons, he just views them as servants (said so by Crowley), and so of course he would have them run his arrunds for him. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 22:21, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Re: User with false info
Thanks for letting me know. The activity, while frowned upon, only happened twice and has not happened again the past 6 days. A warning was issued but if it continues, I will drop a temporary ban. FTWinchester (talk) 13:33, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

Ok I believe Supernatural uses Kabbalah to state how creation began.

•Ein is translated as null, void, or nothingness, and corresponds to 0. (Amara) Instead of Nothingness they used the Synonyms form Darkness is associated with.

•Ein Sof is translated as infinity, and corresponds to 00, and is the emanator of 10 Sephirot. (God) the appearance of the Light.

•Ein Sof Ohr is translated as infinite light, and corresponds to 000. (Archangels) God's Light.

•Ein caused Ein Sof, and Ein Sof begot Ein Sof Ohr. The creation of the world.

Now that is still theory. However the user isn't stating contradictions in their opinion. It's similarity. It's similar to parts of the Genesis story. But as long as it doesn't contradict or is stated in the series' canon info I will allow it. Trivia section are for trivia things, or miscellaneous. Now if in trivia they state, something like. "Genesis was accurate in describing the creation of the world." Than that is moving past trivia. This is my decision as of now. Also, I didn't want to put back into it property place in the paragraph. In the trivia section. Only trivia that is part of the page or is similar can be allowed.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 23:31, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

You asked to defer to my judgement. I see no harm in this. Trivia sections are details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value by definition. They are the proper place on the articles to allow things like this. Like even if the Darkness in the Bible is credited as the night. (Which some scholars state it wasn't the night but the form of the world before God gave it form.) But that is a religion translation debate. I think it can stay. But inform the user if you want, it has to stay to where it falls under being similar. And not to state that these trivia details are true. Some trivia details are facts. That aren't worth putting into the main articles paragraphs.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 00:27, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Ban request
Done and done. Thank you for your participation. By the way, Emboar is aesthetically better than Blaziken. FTWinchester (talk) 21:52, March 15, 2016 (UTC)