User talk:FTWinchester

Nightmares start 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

Re: Hey!
Yes, I'm back. :D For a while now, I hope, since I'm officially out of school.

I'll check your  proposal on the tense/grammar guide out ASAP!

-Sybil (Blessed Be, Sybil 05:03, June 21, 2013 (UTC))

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

Sorry about deleting  a section in th Hunter page. I was trying to add some hunters that were missing, and accidentlly deleted a portion. Sorry for the mess!

No, problem man! I actually had the same issue when I first began adding gifs myself. For the gif to work you need to add |frame| instead of |thumb|, for example instead of File:Angelsfalling.gif|thumb|right| it would be File:Angelsfalling.gif|frame|right|. Bkshadows (talk) 03:07, May 20, 2013 (UTC)Bkshadows

I just saw your edit on Prometheus's page about Chronos...As far as I know, the Chronos shown on the show was the god who could control time and not the Titan Kronos/Cronus..Generally people confuse them due to similar sounding names, but they are said to be different...ME$$AIAH 05:21, May 20, 2013 (UTC)RaghavD

I personally think your exagerating, but I do see your point about the same thing be repeated. However as the information is generally presented in different ways, I don't really see the need to remove it. General MGD 109 (talk) 19:43, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe your not exagerating, but I carefully read the page over, from top to bottom and I can say that it seems okay now. All in I think its okay leaving it now. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:51, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Using Past Tense
While it's true that using past tense in canon is better to read, but have you truly seen the number of pages that have to be modified, buddy? I did edit the Harvelle's Roadhouse and Ash pages into past tense, but we need to start right from Season 1's Pilot episode. Do we start editing or we leave the pages like that and make sure that newly created pages are written in past tense? RaghavD  The One and Only  16:46, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to, say, butt in, but yes, I do think we need to weld them into PAST TENSE if needed. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:48 PM, June 4th 2013
 * Well then we better start right away, afterall there is no use waiting, while doing something good(It's a saying in my native tongue)  :P RaghavD  The One and Only  16:54, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then we better start right away, afterall there is no use waiting, while doing something good(It's a saying in my native tongue)  :P RaghavD  The One and Only  16:54, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Time's a-wasting, currently. Get a move on it! ha ha -- ImperiexSeed, 12:57 PM, June 4th 2013


 * I edited the Wendigo episode. I'm not 100% happy as some sentences didn't quite sit together. But it'll do for the moment. RaghavD  The One and Only  17:09, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been advocating this for months now and nobody is listening to me, which is why I put emphasis. Nobody even responded to this forum that it's bsolutely frustrating. It's not like the community won't benefit, I just don't know why people won't show support. FTWinchester (talk) 17:34, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * And I am well aware of the number of articles that need to be rewritten, but I can't do it all. Everybody needs to follow guidelines. Unfortunately, the guidelines I proposed haven't garnered any solid support to turn them into actual policies. FTWinchester (talk) 17:37, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * In this, I support you fully, bro! Just, tell me how I can help. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:38 PM, June 4th 2013


 * Thanks. If you agree to the proposal, two things need to be done--the first being disseminating information about the proper tense usage, and the second being adhering to the guidelines. Again, thank you very much. FTWinchester (talk) 17:41, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, maybe we could assemble a team of selective users who go around fixing the tense usage in adherence to its guidelines? -- ImperiexSeed, 1:48 PM, June 4th 2013


 * That would actually be great, but seeing as I had very little to no success in the matter, I suppose an admin like you would have more success. FTWinchester (talk) 01:53, June 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. Let's make it happen! Enlist users like General MGD 109, Twilight Despair 5, and MisterRandom. Hang a message on all of their talk pages, stating what needs to be done. I PAST TENSED some info on the soul page. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:17 PM, June 5th 2013


 * Alright, thanks, man. FTWinchester (talk) 02:21, June 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, yep. Let's do this thang. ha ha -- ImperiexSeed, 12:12 PM, June 6th 2013


 * Sure I'll joint you, I agree the pages should be in past tense. Thanks for inviting me. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:21, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Just let me know what and where you want me to do. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:33, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about me? Self-Declared God of Supreme Conduits (talk) 21:43, June 6, 2013 (UTC) Kesslerbeast


 * Sure, man. It wasn't my intention to leave you out, I was just quite preoccupied in the Buffy wikia, so I wasn't able to ask everyone currently active in joining. Thanks for your support! FTWinchester (talk) 21:51, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

re: Rising Son talk
It's cool, man. It just boiled down to fanwank, anyway.--50.89.225.132 19:35, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

re: Lust+Chastity
It's fine, dude. We all usually miss something when we're adding something. And I really enjoy the irony of the same actress playing Lust and "Chastity"--didn't even realize that until you posted it.--50.89.225.132 15:35, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Give me five minutes. General MGD 109 (talk) 20:46, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Done, I hope its up to standard. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:05, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Chat?
If you have time, care to get on the chat?&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 16:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Affiliates
Well, this is up for discussion. But frankly, from experience, affiliations don't do very much for raising our page views & site visits, rather, SEO (search-engine optimisation) and appearing 1st in Google search results is what gets people visiting our site. So I don't really see much point in affiliation, unless it's for another Supernatural Wiki (e.g. Supernatural Fan Fiction), because then in a sense, we are from the same community of editors. Whereas in the case of BTVS and Charmed, there is virtually no link between the two apart from the fact that the shows are of the supernatural genre.

So yeah, it doesn't do much for us nor is it a particularly meaningful affiliation. Good point about the links to other CW wikis though, those aren't official affiliates, it's just Wikia arbitrarily sneaking in links to other Wikis so as to prove Wikia's overall search ranking (because people spending more time on Wikis is a plus for them). I would go ahead and remove them, but something tells me you'll want to push for affiliation with Buffyverse anyway? Calebchiam Talk 04:18, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, of course, it's always open for discussion. But it's one thing to visit another Wiki to learn from them, it's another to start becoming an active editor there. Perhaps more would visit (though personally, I never click on affiliate links) but I think you'll agree that it's unlikely editors of another Wiki would suddenly decide to become active editors on this Wiki unless they were already interested in the show. (And if they already were, they would have found this Wiki already.)


 * Just to clarify though, there is no precedent for this. The decision to not affiliate was my own, so we are following it only by silent consensus, so if you want to change it, be my guest. Calebchiam Talk 04:50, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no biggie and thanks dude :) and sorry if you got too many notifications on your talk page. For some reason, my message kept appearing before Calebchiam's last message.  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  04:56, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

Why is every user on this wiki just ignoring everything I have to say, on talk pages or blog posts? Take your response on to the "fighting" topic, I sent in a response, so did General, and immediately, in the opening, you just addressed General even though I also left a comment. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:51 PM, June 26th 2013

Ok, well....if that truly is the case, I have no problem with that. Oh, I'm sooo looking forward to Season 9, but I'm really curious as to what it's going to be about. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:11 PM, June 27th 2013

Re:Redirects
Yes, go right ahead. They don't count in the list of article pages anyway, assuming you create them correctly. I've done it here, which would give you this when you search for it. Calebchiam Talk 02:50, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Hey, I was hoping if you have the time to help me out with an Infobox for a wiki I'm editing. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  12:50, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link to the wiki I've told you about.

http://coupling.wikia.com/wiki/Steve_Taylor.

See the infobox for the character. I've got the basic template from Community Central. I had to fill up the required details like Ex Partner, Present Partner etc. I did not like the end product of it. I mean the background color of the wiki does not match with the infobox's colors and the color is too light to read. Could you design a template with suitable colors? I mean it's possible to change the colors in the infobox, right? Also I have no idea why is there space between each line. I'm just asking if it's possible for you or not. I would appreciate any help. :)  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  15:25, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

What you have done so far is good. Only one thing left is the width of the infobox. Can that be trimmed? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  05:01, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot dude :) I'll let you know if I have any trouble.  RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  05:10, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Eve on the main page
Just thought I'd let you know that I added Eve to the main page under Deities. Do you think Lucifer should be added to in the same category as he was the creator of the demons? RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:13, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I was talking about the Top of The Main Page. Pardon the turn of phrase :) RaghavD   Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:13, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I'll think of a way to do that. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:18, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Done. btw, on the main page there is a slider which consists of 4 images. One of them says that S9 premiere is on Oct 3rd. Anyway to edit that?. I think one has to search for the Slider template of the Supernatural Wiki to edit that. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  14:48, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I had to dig a little. But I finished editing it. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  15:25, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Browse and Slider sections are restricted only to admins. I just searched for the respective templates and edited them. In any case I never really tinkered with templates as a regular user, so I don't know whether anyone can edit them or not. RaghavD  Taking the ROAD less travelled  13:39, July 4, 2013 (UTC)