User talk:FTWinchester

Welcome, Leave Your Nightmares Here
Hi, welcome to Supernatural Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the User blog:RiderJones/Aliens in Supernatural page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Thesilentpoethosea (Talk) 16:00, October 14, 2012

Can you meet me on chat? -- ImperiexSeed, 6:06 PM, October 23rd 2012

Back me up
Hello FTWinchester. I need some backing up. Maybe you've noticed, maybe you haven't, but there has a debate going on between me and different users about the word "master" on Metatron's page. I say that it needs to be "Master", since it is in reference to God. However other users are adamant that it be "master", which incorrect. I made section in the talk page for Metatron, which is where I need your backing. I appreciate your help.

SilverRain (talk) 01:29, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the proper nouns you speak of, like "He", "Him", or "Master", can be capitalized even in-between a sentence, as it's referencing God. But I wouldn't say it's strictly grammatically incorrect if you don't, I mean, I myself mostly just use lowercase lettering even when talking about God, although I do capitalize "God", "Lord", "Jesus". -- ImperiexSeed, 8:38 PM, November 29th 2012


 * On a personal note, I prefer using capitalized pronouns and such, because 1) I am a Catholic, and 2) the show features the Judeo-Christian God as the Supreme Being, anyway. However, as we are a community with different beliefs, I would not want to impose such things on others. I raised this concern a few weeks ago, but I garnered no response at all. Why don't we just put the matter to vote. Majority wins. FTWinchester (talk) 05:19, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that is not how community decisions are made on wikis, FTWinchester. According to Calebchiam, there must be a general consensus among users, regardless of a majority vote. 108.247.158.158 06:21, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but could you define what makes a 'general consensus' different from a majority vote? As far as I know, a consensus is reached by a mutual agreement among the population--although a majority vote is not necessary, it more or less shows the prevailing opinion on all the members of the wiki. Of course some discussion has to follow, but when you have most of the wiki agreeing on one thing, isn't that basically a consensus? FTWinchester (talk) 13:47, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, general consesus means everyone involved in the discussion must be in full agreement. According to Calebchiam, wikis do not operate on majority votes and when there is a lack of consesnus in a discussion than the status quo is kept. You can read what he said about making community decisions with general consensus over a majority vote on the Talk:Wincest page in the Deletion? discussion. 107.201.16.199 20:30, November 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus could differ from a majority vote, I guess. Realistically, the wiki completely isn't going to agree on something no matter the topic - there's always going to unreasonably disagreeable users, so to me, a majority vote makes more sense and is achievable. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:27 PM, November 30th 2012


 * That may be so, ImperiexSeed, but as I said wikis do not operate by such methods  of community decision-making and we must abide by that policy as is our obligation as users . We both know Calebchiam well enough that strives to uphold the Wikia policies, so it's unlikely he will overlook users settling a debate not by the book as he will undoubtfully view the Metatron and his Master discussion as a lack of consensus and decree that the page remain as is in order to keeper the status quo, regardless how many users are opposed. 107.201.16.199 00:48, December 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I kindly disagree. Ah, well this policy regulation is like the following analogy. It could resemble asking a group of people of varying religions to agree on a God -- philosophically, it's an expectation doomed to fail. There's no way 100% of the contributors here are going to agree on something. My perception remains the same, it'd make more sense if it were a majority vote. I'm in no way obstructing or defiling this wiki's policies, I'm just giving an alternative that makes more more sense. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:57 PM, November 30th 2012


 * ImperiexSeed, I understand what you are saying and do I agree that a majority vote is more practical, but we can not  go with such an alternative simply because we disagree with a general Wikia policy. As an admin, you do not even have the authority to call for a vote to settle a debate. Please do not say you do as I learned that from Caleb himself who is far more versed in Wikia's policies than either us. 107.201.16.199 01:25, December 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, some consensus operate on having a super majority vote (65%, 80%, etc.), but anyway. In a consensus, while not all may agree, those with disagreement may give consent to the majority if it is overwhelming. But I digress. As of now we are locked in this issue, with only maybe 5 users actively participating. That is hardly a consensus, meaning status quo should remain. But what is our status quo? FTWinchester (talk) 03:58, December 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I looked into the Metatron page's edit history and 'master" in sentence was initially with a lowercase lettering when a unregistered user had changed it to such from "father", than SilverRain himself capitalized it afterwards. So I would assume the word uncapitalized would be the status quo as that is how it was originally typed on the page. In addition, regarding how the consensus operates on wikis, from what I can gather is it must be overall agreement as Calebchiam stated even if there were 4 users who believed a page should be deleted and 3 who disagreed, than the page would not be deleted as there is no consensus. Although I believe you may be correct in regards to those who disagree giving consent to the majority (or even minority).107.201.16.199 04:27, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yo! I'd like to talk to you on chat. It'll take only a minute. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:30 PM, December 1st 2012

Regarding the policy on consensus, to clarify, it is not a majority vote, meaning that we do not move forward with a certain action because 60% of users agree, and 40% disagree. That being said, it does not mean that 100% of users have to agree either. The idea of consensus is that we seek to address as many concerns as possible. If valid and undeniable points are brought up by the 40%, we do not ignore them, but seek compromises so that we can move forward. The policy on consensus can be found here.

As stated on that page:

"Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue."

So, when we say 'general consensus', we are talking about this overall consent. Overall consent is not reached if there are significant points brought up by either group that aren't addressed sufficiently. In addition, it does not require the participation of all users in the Wiki, merely those involved in the discussion, however, this should still be a substantial group of participants. Larger policy changes require a greater amount of participation in the discussion from the community. Hope this clears things up, cheers. Calebchiam Talk 08:39, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Cheers. FTWinchester (talk) 13:34, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

I would've, yes. But, the photo linings seem to have been deleted. Go to the links, and you'll see. So, how are you liking Season 8 so far.... Definitely not as good as Season 5, but sill one of the best. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:58 PM, February 7th 2013

Re:Narrative articles
Hey, sorry for the late reply, I was busy for the past few dates. Anyway, regarding your question, both systems do work, but they have their pros and cons. A season-based narrative might make more sense to readers since events are revealed according to the sequence of the episode releases. For example, a chronological narrative would have mentioned the YED feeding Sam demon blood early on in the article (which would make little sense to the uninitiated) while the season-based narrative would set the stage for this important reveal. The season-based narrative is also easier to create, maintain and organise since the information has a clear sorting. That being said, a chronological narrative is much more professional, and allows the segments of the narrative to be sorted into major arcs/storylines rather than episode numbers. It's largely the preference of the Wiki that decides which system to use, although I do lean towards the latter. If you're willing to embark on the task of making the articles on this Wiki consistent with the latter format, be my guest. :) Calebchiam Talk 13:43, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hi. FTWinchester, I'm only going to say this once, so listen up. You, at every turn, pounce on every presentable chance to prove me wrong, and I'm getting sick of it. So, stop! You're a self-proclaimed knowitall, nothing more. I like being you friend, but when you're trying to prove me wrong, I get irresistibly irritable. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:09 PM, February 28th 2013


 * Did you read my message fully--well, did you? It would seem that you didn't, seeing as you accused me of at least two things I didn't do.

1) I never told you to stop editing, in my post- I said, "stop" antagonistically pinning and attacking my posts. Whatever - have a different opinion - I don't care. But it's when you say the exact opposite of what I'm saying that gets me. 2) I needn't look it (the meaning of the phrase, "Self-proclaimed Know-it-all") up - I know very well what it means. It means, you THINK, from your lens, that you you're a better and smarter editor than everybody else.

You're a fine editor, and have much potential here, editing the Supernatural wiki. Keep up the good work. :)

-- ImperiexSeed, 9:27 PM, March 1st 2013

Hi. I thought we got passed this, but, on the blog, you started your instigation again. The term 'Archangel' was first used first used in "Houses of Holy", yes, and an Archangel physically appeared in "Tall Tales", but, in "Free To Be You And Me", is the first time it's called an Archangel and appeared. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:24 PM, March 22nd 2013


 * Ok? You're right, in "Tall Tales", an Archangel appeared 'physically', in a vessel. And, yes, Archangels are first mentioned in "Houses of Holy." But, "Free To Be You And Me" is the first episode where an Archangel physically appears and is confirmed. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:14 PM, March 22nd 2013

Yes, you're welcome. Your templates - man, did they come out splendidly! The utilization of those on the compatible pages enthralls me. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:25 PM, March 23rd 2013

Hey, would you, at a time that's convenient, mind doing a total revamp on the Seraph page? It needs a ton of work done, regarding grammar, punctuation, word usage, etc. Because, honestly, it looks awful right now. Thanks. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:15 PM, March 30th 2013

re:template proposal
Hey FTWinchester. Haha yeah, these templates are pretty sick, nice work. I think you can go ahead and edit the templates as necessary.

On a side note though, we have to be careful about where we use the second template. Just with reference to the examples you mentioned, since the content you mentioned is probably explicitly stated as conjecture/speculation or inductive logic in general, use of that template would not be applicable since it's meant for canonical information that has been seemingly contradicted in later episodes.

Perhaps another idea for a template might be to have one stating that the following article/section of the article contains conjecture or speculation? Just a thought.

Cheers! :) Calebchiam Talk 15:31, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, FTWinchester, I just wanted to let you know I am definitely liking the templates you have created so far. If I may,  I suggest updating the spoiler template as it's format differs from the one your using. Keep up the good work! 108.247.151.147 04:14, March 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support, Wiki Contributor. I'll try to take a look into your suggestion, and if Calebchiam and the community will allow me to do so. FTWinchester (talk) 05:30, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

I think this is where you reply to your template proposal, I would to say they all look great, and I really think you should create them, and I hope you are able to. I just have two disagreements: the first is your "Retcon/Conflict in Canon" template, I don't think thats ones necessary, as as far as I know there has been no true example of reconing, for examples, firstly at no point did anyone say there was only four archangels, that was simply the number that appeared in season five. Secondly its entirely possible he could have a step-father who, considering his orginal one abbandoned him, he took as his real father. My point is there has been no complete recon's yet, so including it would mearly cause disputes over wether it was a recon or not.

Second is your bias template, I can see that being abused, as I personally have been involved in a number of whats bias whats fact debates, with other users, many of which only got resolved because one side gave up, so I would recomend agaist creating that template, as I can only see it being abused. Those are my only two disagreements, and that is simply my advice. Appart from that I'm behind you 100%. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:55, March 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, General's right - in the show, it's never said that there's only 4 Archangels, it's just the number of them that appeared. ImperiexSeed, 6:02 PM, March 23rd 2013
 * General, what about the offscreen retcon of Chuck being God? Shortly after "Swan Song" there were  confirmations from both Rob Benedict and Eric Kripke that it was true, but than after Sera Gamble became showrunner, it had reportedly been stated as otherwise. So I would say there is indeed a pontential use for the "Retcon/Conflict in Canon" template. 107.194.22.242 01:41, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input, guys and/or gals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, the only problematic templates we have are for the 'Retcon/Conflict in Canon' and 'Bias', but everyone who has provided feedback so far agree to the creation of the rest? May I ask your opinion on which template for 'Disambiguation' do you prefer? The Misha or the Balthazar template? I will try to wait for maybe another day before I start creating the other templates, just to give a bit more time for other contributors to weigh in on the subject. FTWinchester (talk) 02:24, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hey FTWinchester. Yep, glad you could get it to work. It's pretty much just creating the template page with an appropriate name, posting the html code, and then using on pages as necessary. There's also the issue of template documentation, which details whether there are parameters that need to be filled and how the template should be used but we can always work on it later on since it's quite secondary. And yes, you understood correctly what I said about the second template.

As for which template to use...I personally find the 'Misha' one more humourous, although technically, disambiguation pages are for different subjects with the same name, and the Misha example in the show is really the same subject but with a different name (or different subjects with different names, depending on how you want to argue it). So it might be less appropriate, but this is nitpicking somewhat. The Balthazar one is still good though. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 10:08, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to be completely neutral, so to have a template for bias would imply that we actually condone it in articles. The retcon template is alright in theory, whether or not there are any examples of retconning in the series is another thing, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have the template. Calebchiam Talk 12:08, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I have watched buffy and watched some of Angel. Personally, I think Buffy is an average show. I dont like it as much as supernatural, vampire diaries, being human UK, or true blood. I think Buffy was very butt kicking show, but I didnt like the storylines, didnt like most of the characters, I didnt like them introducing all these demons and not sticking to vampires and introducing greater vampire threats. The only characters I happened to like on buffy were Spike, Faith, Turok Han Vampire and Caleb. Adam was cool too, with his gun hand. Im sticking to the winchesters for slaying

ThomasAtticusSilas2013+ (talk) 20:29, March 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer this Wiki use the Misha one for our disambiguation, because, well, the appearance of Misha - it invokes Castiel. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:12 PM, March 30th 2013