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)

I had to go ahead and update the Wiki Navigation/header. The demand was adding up and I saw a way to get it done, without losing anything. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:45, November 9, 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)

Feedback

 * Some constructive criticism from Reka12452:
 * "Yeah, i like the sepia color as compliment color but not as the background color, and that Twitter feed is too narrow vertically - you can't even view the whole crew picture or video tweets as it's presented now, at least not on my computer.Reka12452 (talk) 18:33, November 7, 2016 (UTC)"

I thought I would forward this to you. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:40, November 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * Great. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:36, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

Are you gonna link the page on season 12 under the main page Supernatura heading?......Maybe make a new heading - 'Dabb Era' or something? AnnweshaAdhikari (talk) 16:21, November 8, 2016 (UTC) AnnweshaAdhikari

Great. I wasn't aware wikia had to review it. I found it on an official wiki for it, so I assumed it was pre-vetted. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:29, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Is it okay if I create another forum, using the newer style? If the forums we have are only for wiki matters, regular users need another place. If you recall I was in favor of replacing old forums with newer ones, I've changed that point of view. I think we should have both, like Avatar Wiki. They use older version for wiki matters.

If you agree with this, feel free to suggest forum names. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:48, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

I mean, like this. Avatar wiki has Impala style forums for wiki matters and the shown "newer style" of forums for everything else. Blogs aren't really specialized for discussions. Adding these forums, which almost anybody can use and understand; should draw in more users into conversation and participation. According to wikia, we are an extremely popular wiki; but I've observed we have extremely low user participation. Usually contained to small group of dedicated contributers.

Also, any Admin can create those forums, I can create those forums. I have experience doing so. Wikia staff help is not required. I guess I will create a forum tomorrow. Zane T 69 (talk) 04:11, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it tomorrow, It's almost 11:00 PM here. Zane T 69 (talk) 04:58, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. Both can't exist and in hindsight It's not needed, we have a tiny community. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:14, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural Spiff Update (Part 3)
Good morning! I'm so glad that the community approved! I went ahead and made the changes. Let me know if you want the Twitter widget to be longer or shorter. Or if anything else needs editing. :) Thanks again for being open to me helping out and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Witnessme (talk) 15:49, November 14, 2016 (UTC)

Forum Discussion
Ok thanks for letting me know. I will do the discussions on blogs from now on.Rafe Adler (talk) 03:39, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
Hi, Caleb! How are you keeping up? Long time no talk. I just noticed that one of our previous members has been unblocked. I'm sure you're familiar with Empyrean. While I have no issues with him editing again, I have noticed he has rollback rights. When was this allowed? I don't trust the guy after repeatedly exhibiting abuse of power especially when I was usually the first to give him support, guidance and a second chance. I won't be so lenient this time. I do feel he should not be given any rollback rights considering one of his misconducts in the past was because of an edit war with Imperiex. Was this simply a left over status before he was banned that was reestablished when his ban was lifted? Or was this with community consensus? Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 14:08, December 8, 2016 (UTC)

Well, alright then. Thanks for the information. FTWinchester (talk) 23:31, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Misuse of rollback and blocking
I can understand your concern of misuse. I simply saw other users requesting for category creation, and I assumed it was common practice. In the future I will remember what you've said. I hope this hasn't effected your opinion of me; as an admin. I have done a lot in my short time as an admin.

Given Darths history of focusing on adding categories, I assumed he was unilaterally menting himself new edits. Users keep creating, without discussing and getting consensus. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:12, December 12, 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, the block was so that I can mop up the mess; so to speak. It was a cool down, not a punishment. It couldn't have been cleaned up effectively, if he was constantly adding invalid categories, while I was undoing them. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:17, December 12, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take your advice, Caleb, and try to be more clear in the future. BTW, I used rollback because it's one-click reverting. It was that, or click Undo, go through the slow loading of the entire page and what I'm changing. I simply view rollback as a potential one-click alternative to "Undo". I do of course exercise caution, given that rollback reverts multiple edits, some of which can be constructive. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:49, December 12, 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems the ego of Reka12452 has grown to the point, that she feels she can ignore consensus and make unilateral decisions, ignoring the wishes of everyone else. See here, please. I figured I'd bring you in, since she doesn't respect me for some reason. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:35, December 19, 2016 (UTC)


 * I was wondering, how much time I can block ImperiexSeed for when he returns and breaks the rules he broke last time? Because he will, I've seen that much on Arrowverse wiki and this one. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:20, January 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * So treat it as a first offence, with a three day block? Or treat him as a serial offender, which is what he is?Zane T 69 (talk) 14:37, January 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, ImperiexSeed hasn't changed, which isn't a surprise. Seraph and I are trying to gather up the admins to talk about creating a forum to pursue an infinite ban via consensus. Please get back to me on when is a good time for that talk, or any objections regarding the idea. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:30, February 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * So you're saying create forum and ask people to oppose or support Imperiex' infinite ban? Or can I just infinite ban him? Zane T 69 (talk) 15:19, February 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * You informed me I needed to create a forum for an infinite ban of ImperiexSeed. If you would like too, please register your opinion here. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:02, February 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I tried doing that, and previewed the edits, and then tested the links, and they didn't work. I honestly didn't think of citing sections, I was so caught up in the matter. They were red links and didn't go to where I intend, I don't think I was suppose to make them external. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:17, February 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * I made it work, it's not perfect, but it's functional and provides evidence. Thanks for the offer though, doing that made me remember that I could always only cite histories like that. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:39, February 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that. I actually did try emulating it, I just failed epically and horribly. Now that I look back I did it wrong, anyway. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:18, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Been a while
Hey Caleb, are you around here? SeraphLucifer (talk) 19:20, February 5, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Doing fine thanks a lot, I hope everythings OK with your life. I need to talk to you about something, can we meet at chat sometime? And also I wasn't active for last month since I got a serious exam to attend, but I'll be active these days. Contributing as always. SeraphLucifer (talk) 19:32, February 6, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Re:Forum
Alright, thank you :) Gabriel456 (talk) 14:05, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

I thought you were opposing/stalling the matter. Anyway, anyone can scan Seeds entire edit history, that's easy to do. I cited that he was banned multiple times, several users testified against him. While I agree I could have presented better evidence, this is my first "trial" so to speak. I thought his guilt was proven and that enough evidence was supported.

Point on on my talkpage. I thought, at first, that they could provide eye-witness accounts of Seeds rule breaking and possibly some evidence.

I understand what your saying in point two and three. I assumed you wanted Imperiex to stick around in spite of being a proven threat, and menace. I felt anyone could go search his edit history or read Seraphs or Blaze's testimonies. Some aspects of Seeds history I wasn't around for and don't have as much knowledge about. All I could expect was people to view his edit history, it just seemed obvious to me and I expected people to take that obvious option or read the thread.

Anyway, you said the thread was closed and I'm thankful. These debates can get annoying and it gets harder to keep track of everything, in addition to all my other work I'm usually doing while debating. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:39, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Caleb. Can I get your opinion on this? Zane T 69 (talk) 02:47, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

With this explanation: [] it makes sense. I personally prefer it as is, but I'll forward your constrictive criticism to her. I like this version because it's all in one and allows users to access any episode from any season, all from one template. Will we need a forum to put such a template into use? Zane T 69 (talk) 04:07, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the unexpanded infobox is like less than half an inch at the bottom of a page. I think it's the best infobox I've ever seen! Zane T 69 (talk) 04:23, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Becoming an Admin
I'm interested in becoming an Admin and would like to know what I'd have to do to achieve that status. I've never sought it before and while I have it on the Gears of War Wiki, I honestly don't know how that happened. I just got a message one day that I was an Admin there. I'd like to get it here if possible. I only do constructive edits, have built many pages, I don't think I've had any real issues with anyone, I seem to be fairly well liked...--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:28, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

WG18 has my full support, which I offered before he could even ask. He deserves to be an admin, he's hard working and loyal and has proven himself as an exceptionally mature and reliable person. If he were refused an RFA and adminship it would be tragedy and a great loss to this wiki. EDIT: Also, can you set closing time for the thread? Your probably the most impartial person. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:38, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

As Zane here has said, I already have his support and he told me on my talk page he believes I can get the support I need. He also said he was willing to start the RfA but wanted to wait for your permission to me. I may not be fully up on everything yet, but I am willing to put the time in if I get this. As I've said before, I have Admin status elsewhere without even my input into getting it. Obviously my work on that Wiki was considered good enough that I was promoted without even being consulted. Seriously, I'm not kidding about this.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 03:45, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

I know, I'm just pointing out that the last time I received something like this, it wasn't something that I sought. It was something I was given and I see it as a sign of faith from the people on that Wiki that they chose to promote me, however that was done, without even bringing the idea to my attention.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 04:19, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

This actually brought a good question to my mind: why did I get that promotion there??? I contacted the Admin that did the promotion just now to ask. The About page mentions the various Admins and the reason they were promoted but actually fails to mention me or why so this has really spiked my curiosity. As far as I can tell from going through that Wiki, they only promote Admins when there's some kind of need. What it was for me to get that promotion I have no idea.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 04:28, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

How long should WG18s RFA last? I was just about to nominate him, but wasn't sure how long. I'll go ahead and do the rest and let you put in the closing date. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:40, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the promotion!!! I intend to consult with Zane for anything I don't know how to do and do everything in my power to aid him and Seraph in their tasks. If I don't understand, I'm more than willing to ask for instructions.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 19:32, March 4, 2017 (UTC)

I just want to notify you that alot of the older aritcles of monsters are still have the old infobox

Season Infobox Forum
Hey, Caleb. I create a forum to discuss and vote on the Season Infobox. LInk. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:12, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Can I close the matter myself, or do I need to have someone else do it? Zane T 69 (talk) 02:47, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Caleb. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:26, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Image categorisation edits
Is it against the rules for users to upload pictures just to categorize them for edits? If so, how long should they be blocked for? Zane T 69 (talk) 15:12, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

So I'll have to delete them later (if they remain unused) and she is creating a huge mess for us Admins to clean up? Zane T 69 (talk) 15:55, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Could I draft a policy that forbids the uploading of images solely to categorize for edits and propose it in forum? Zane T 69 (talk) 15:57, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so fast. Now that you say it like that it sounds quite stupid my part. Granted, I'm not even slightly offended. I'm glad that I delayed writing the first draft. if I had written it, I would have looked even dumber. Thanks for pointing out how bad of an idea that was, and I'll take your advice and merely talk to her. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:04, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

Welcome Wagon
Thank you for the "Welcome" message! I've actually been a long time Wiki member, but this is the first time I've ever edited anything. I hope I did okay! Please let me know if you notice any errors, and I will promptly fix them! --Ks2id2tx (talk) 06:05, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, I'd like to request the rights for this Rollback thing. I was asked if I wanted to and I thought it was interesting so uh yeah! :) Touchinos (talk) 04:46, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Uh, Caleb. You sent the message to him, but forgot to actually promote him. See?
 * Yup, my bad. Thanks for the reminder - I was on airport wifi and thought it went through. Calebchiam Talk 16:35, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Request for Rollback
Hi, Zane left a message on my page asking if I wanted rollback rights, and I think it might be useful sometimes, so would it be ok if I did? :-)   Thanks! Dtol (talk) 11:03, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dtol (talk) 10:36, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

CastielLover20 (talk) 15:06, October 8, 2017 (UTC)Hi! I'm from Greece. I'd like to ask you if you want to translate SPN wikia into Greek. Thank you!!!CastielLover20 (talk) 15:06, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Season 13 Title Card for the main page ( just click the number ):

[]

Help. Urgent
Someone messed up the wikis layout and several people hate it. Can you figure out who messed it up? I've tried and can't, it only shows me previous revisions. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:08, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and contacted wikia too, which I should have done earlier. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:04, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's still acting up for me. Your talkpage displayed in a white background, but when I typed this it was black. Recent changes displays in black also, but I guess wikia will have to fix it. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:31, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

I'm also writing a policy to limit junk edits, prevent edit gaming, clean our servers, and to prevent Wikiactivity from breaking for the tenth time. Link. I'd like your opinion on it, and you are welcome to change it too. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:09, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

Can we talk some time?
Hey Caleb, hope you are doing fine... Can we have a chat when you are avaiable? SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:48, November 5, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Hey Caleb, sorry for late respond I was sick for a few days. I will be avaiable this weekend, I can e-mail if its OK for you. SeraphLucifer (talk) 11:11, November 17, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Angel Radio
Greetings, my good sir.

I would like to open the official (?) Supernatural Wiki Discord Server.

While I'm pretty damn sure that I do not need to ask for permission, I thought It would be polite to ask an admin about this.

So I asked SeraphLucifer. And he directed me to you.

Please respond ASAP. Thank you in advance.

 The Star is falling   -   Greet the First Dawn!  21:32, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

I want it registered that I oppose having a Discord, for the reasons stated: here. That and we simply don't have enough users to police it and the wiki. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:36, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

If you look on my talkpage you'll see how rude he was too. I'm not above compromise and if the community wants a Discord they'll have it, but we need trustworthy and calmer users who don't immediately lash out when questioned; and I was polite and explained why I voted no. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:23, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but he's already lost my support of him being in-charge of it. He got too angry, far too easily, and didn't refute my points or address them. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:42, November 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words, sir.
 * Due to this wiki's appearance (for the lack of better term) and system, I do not know how to start such a thread. I know that this may be too much to ask of you, but if you would be so kind as to start that thread yourself? Not only are you more familiar with how this wiki works, but people would definitely regard you (who I guess is a creator of this wiki) with more respect and attention than they would me.
 * Once again, thank you. I hope this works out fine for all of us
 *  The Star is falling   -   Greet the First Dawn!  01:27, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

Question
Hey, Caleb. I was wondering what the wikis policy on sock-puppeting is, including when they have vandalized. I've blocked two accounts belonging to the same user, and was advised by wikia to ask what the policy was... I searched the Policies category and couldn't find a policy regarding it. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:35, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I put what you said into a formally written policy? Because we do need that in writing for future incidents. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:30, December 9, 2017 (UTC)

Forum talk
There is a discussion occurring on how we should format the Season pages and the episode summaries. Please join the discussion.Click here --ThomasNealy (talk) 05:06, December 14, 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Caleb. We have a request here, that I'm not able to fulfill. I tried, but all I did was create redlinks, and I've never created interlanguage links before. Could you do that? Zane T 69 (talk) 22:17, December 15, 2017 (UTC)

Hey, we need you to preside over another Sysop nomination. link Zane T 69 (talk) 21:27, December 22, 2017 (UTC)

I've also been nominated for B-Crat status by the same user, and I hope I've proven myself enough to have your support. You may need to make sure it's in the right place, link: Link Zane T 69 (talk) 22:58, December 22, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Caleb. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:49, December 24, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Caleb, but don't retire too much. Lol. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:29, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to handle closing Blaziken's RFA? I weighed in on it and my neutrality might be questioned, though it's largely negative or neutral against him. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:49, January 7, 2018 (UTC)

Any reason you want to close my RfA a full week ahead of time? Orion ( T - B -C) 23:52, January 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to Zane or asking a new query? As a response to both questions, I'll do the closing on 14 Jan, after it has run for the full 2 weeks. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 00:00, January 8, 2018 (UTC)

@Blaze: I wasn't, actually. I was planning ahead and was curious, if it was something I was suppose to do, then I needed to know in advance. I'm still new to this and was wondering if he would do that or if I would. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:08, January 8, 2018 (UTC)

Category Suggestion
Hey, i created a blog post about a new category, that i suggested to WarG and he agreed to ask to the others admins, see the post here. Doctor49 (talk) 00:26, January 9, 2018 (UTC)

Re:
Perhaps a template should be made that eliminates any and all bias/regional differences for notifications. In my area the ballots specifically state "Vote for (issue name/number) followed by two bubbles one for yes one for no. --ThomasNealy (talk) 05:31, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Alleged false claims of having rejected adminship
No, you did not offer me admin status, but I have been approached on more than one occasion by administrators who did. Whether they could follow through with their offer was not something I thought relevant, because I rejected the offer.

Don't call me a liar when you don't know the whole story.

Orion ( T - B -C) 21:27, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Think what you will. I have no need to prove myself right.

Orion ( T - B -C) 08:52, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Monster#Monsters_omitted_part_2
The debate on what goes on the monster page has been reopened. Your opinion on the issue would be welcome. you can find the link here Talk:Monster Thank you--ThomasNealy (talk) 22:53, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

Blocked infinitely by Zane69
Hi, Caleb-

This is a request for you to reverse the block on me impose by Zane. His reason is for it "threatening users, intimidating behavior and harassment." If you care to read through my comuunications on the wikia, specifically with him on my talk page or on his with me, you will see that I have never "threatened" him or anyone else with anything except to take things to a higher level (meaning you, obviously) if he attempts to block me. He has threatened me with it several times before,  and I know that he has even approached you and others about trying to make it happen. He's been trying to find a reason to block me, and I think with this last kurfuffle with the image uploading he thought he had a good footing. But, that's not even the reason gives  for blocking me!! He has a big problem with me because I have voiced opinions on several different occassions about things where he feels it was not my place to speak, but that is not against the rules. He claims that I have been involved in edit wars which is patently untrue: if i  have a difference of opinion on an edit, i put my reasons in the history or place a message on the editors talk board about it -- the proof is there.

ThomasNealy has already reupload the images that he and Zane approached me about and left me a message about it on my board. I have posted them on the Point of No Return page as I'd planned to along, although obviously not logged on as my self.

Thanks for your ear,

Reka12452


 * Yes, Caleb, please read through my communications with them. You can see that I have consistently been in the right and their threat was the straw that broke the camels back. As for my "threats of blocking"... I am responsible for punishing rule-breaking and they have broken rules, a warning was given and potential punishment for breaking a rule (a second or third violation on her part) was stated, not a threat. I have never sought to oppress their rights and their saying so is pure slander. Reka tried ignoring consensus and inserted false information, and I leniently debated and warned her, but she/or he I'm not sure, continues with appalling behavior. I have NEVER claimed that she was involved edit wars and to say such is PURE LIES, Edit wars were mentioned first by her in our recent argument.


 * the threat was, and I quote; "So, if you try block me over some arbitary 24hr rule, this willl definately go to another level." You can see how that would be considered threatening, instead of saying: I'll contact another B-Crat or Admin, or Wikia, it was worded in an intimidating manner that did not imply her involving an equal or higher power for a civilized discussion. This block is entirely justified and I would be surprised if Wikia Staff wouldn't global block her for saying such a thing.


 * Literally every Admin here would have already punished her in like manner already, but my already excessive mercy just wasn't enough for them. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:16, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll need some time to read through the discussions to get up to speed but based on this alone, I would like to point out a few things. To say "So, if you try block me over some arbitary 24hr rule, this willl definately go to another level" on a Wiki implies that the user will seek reparations by involving another administrator or Wiki staff even. "go to another level" pretty much indicates this, whereas actual threatening behaviour would be along the lines of "I know enough about you to figure out where you live...I'm coming for you, [etc etc]". What Reka has written is very mild and, in a community discussion, would not qualify as threatening or intimidating behaviour. I doubt Wikia staff would even be concerned about this.


 * Secondly, Reka is an established user on this Wiki and I think everyone would agree that he/she has good intentions for the most part, even if there may be disagreements about how he/she carries out certain changes. Indefinite blocks should not be handed out so easily except in the case of extremely malignant behaviour. As you recall, even in the case of Imperiexseed, it took a community-level discussion before he was blocked indefinitely. Should Reka be blocked indefinitely, a community-level discussion would be due process as well.


 * I'm not going to unblock Reka just yet as I'm sure you have your reasons. But as a neutral observer, I believe you may not be thinking coolly here and I advise that you reconsider the block. A block may be deserved, but an indefinite block is very hard to justify in this case. You are also not an unbiased party and therefore it would be more appropriate to defer to another administrator to administer a block, so that no one can accuse you of abusing your tools. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 17:36, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

I've asked Dtol for her opinion on the matter, and go to another level can mean several things, I'll conceed that, but it can also imply revenge-seeking. She didn't specify that she would seek a civilized means of resolution, and not many would be stupid or arrogant enough to graphically describe what they would do to someone on the internet; to much evidence. She mostly tells lies about me out of some old grudge from where I did my duty as an Admin to try preventing unused/uncategorized images from getting worse. And if I recall correctly, she had uploaded several dozen photos and categorized them and left them unused, all around, she is just rude, arrogant, entitled person who wants to constantly argue and cause drama what little time she is here. Everyone must be treated equally and she doesn't seem to understand that, I was asked to warn her and then she responded with insults and told me that: "i really don’t have to place them on your 24-hr deadline."

If you truly insist, I will reduce the block to one or two years, which is quite generous, considering her disruptive behavior. Now, I'll be very busy today, so please allow two hours for me to reply to your messages. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:52, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not muddy the waters here. You say that "[Reka] didn't specify that she would seek a civilized means of resolution", but neither did she actually say she was seeking an uncivilised means of resolution. You need solid grounds of actual misbehaviour rather than a stretched and dubious interpretation of what Reka has actually said. As fellow editors, we should assume good faith.


 * I get that Reka and you do not get along - but nothing in her behaviour suggests that she deserves a block. Rudeness to administrators is not a blockable offence. A 1-year block is ridiculous for an established user with no history of past blocks (for IP users with actual vandalism, the first block is typically for a duration of 3 days.) This is disproportionate and unjustified.


 * Since you are certain about your case, I advise that you put it to a community discussion and list out Reka's misbehaviours. Right now, your block of her is magnified by the fact that there is a conflict of interest. All your examples of her misbehaviours are directly related to you, i.e. there can be no fair judgment given your stake in the situation. My advice is that you unblock Reka and allow any other uninvolved administrator to weigh in and decide if a block is justified.


 * As you have stated that you will be busy for today, I am letting you know that I will remove the block in a few hours if it is still in place. I do not want to engage in a block/unblock war, but due process demands that community discussions be given to established users especially when there is no clear case of vandalism. If I have to remove the block myself, I will also have to start a discussion on the legitimacy on the block as per process. This will be a long and drawn-out discussion, and I have no particular interest in doing so. To me, the most sensible course of action would be for you to unblock Reka and let a neutral administrator take things from there. But if you will not budge, and if you will not acknowledge the conflict of interest here, then I will be forced to take this course of action. Calebchiam Talk 18:10, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Dtol (talk) 18:14, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

I find this compromise reasonable and was going to suggest involving the community, we actually edit conflicted while suggesting the same thing. I will unblock her immediately and defer to an uninvolved Admin. Is WG18 or Dtol acceptable? In full disclosure, I have asked for her opinion due to her not objecting to the block; and she objected to other infinite blocks performed by TW5 on anons.

@Dtol, what do you agree with? Zane T 69 (talk) 18:19, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say that Reka should be unblocked for now (unless they start vandalising/spamming, etc. normal blocking things), and to bring up a community discussion with evidence from both sides of any infractions. An infinite block of a longer-term user without consultation seems extreme. Thanks. Dtol (talk) 18:25, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to Dtol reviewing the block, but it seems that it is agreed that a community discussion would be useful here to air things out. This would also prevent any accusations of collusion (since Zane has already discussed this block with Dtol.) Zane, please feel free to set out your case against Reka on the forum. Glad we could come to a resolution, cheers. Calebchiam Talk 18:29, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

I started the topic Forum:Indefinite_block_of_Reka12452 --ThomasNealy (talk) 18:37, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Policy question
Will the Sock-puppet rule also need community approval? I moved it into the correct name-space, and I'm sure my question is a yes. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:23, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I can delete it, or you can update the blocking policy too. It kinda needs to be moved from your user page anyway, no offense. It has no version with the actual policies, so we technically don't have one. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:30, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

New Policy Discussion
A new policy is being proposed you can find more information here and give your opinion here Standard vote options apply. Thank you.

That is the copy of my message to others. Since Zane is the proposing B-crat would act as the moderator and stuff for it?--ThomasNealy (talk) 20:48, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

like for the nominations and forum pages. where you post the decision. Not sure what to call it. and i seem to have left the "you" off my post above it was meant to read as would you act as the moderator and stuff for it? --ThomasNealy (talk) 21:08, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Forum
Noted for future. Thanks. Dtol (talk) 14:33, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, under Orion/Blazekins advice, I talked with Sannse from Wikia and she agreed with your assessment of what I felt to be a threat. As such, I won't be pursuing the original Infinite block/ban, but I'm not sure where the discussion should progress from there; considering that Dtol and ThomasNealy believe a year-long block should be necessary and WG18 supported the infinite block. I did step aside, as much as I could, and invite others in for their opinions. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:15, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I had to leave the discussion due to Orion wanting to waste time arguing pointlessly, but I will keep an eye on the discussion. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:08, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Template Guide
I wanted run an idea by you and the other admins before I started on it to see you you thought it was worth doing or unneeded. I want to make a Guide to our templates. One that will show what they are, what they are used for, and how to use them. once it's done I would like to have it added to the top nav bar if possible. I would also like to review the templates and open talks on deleting ones that have no use any longer. Is this something that you think would be ok? this is what I i have in mind. User:ThomasNealy/sandbox/Template_Guide --ThomasNealy (talk) 18:55, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

hey Caleb Zane thought you might be able to help me out with this. I was working on the guide (see above) and I noticed that the creatures/monsters/beings use two different templates. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Creatures Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:RecurringCharacters As an example Werewolves, vampire, and ghosts all use the RecurringCharacters template but Ones like Windigo, Tricksters, and Zombies all use the Creatures template. Is there a reason for this? I thought at first it was a Descendant of Eve thing but ghosts are not a eve decedent either.--ThomasNealy (talk) 21:55, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Should I go through the pages and make the changes then? --ThomasNealy (talk) 18:12, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

Attack on the Wiki
We have a massive attack on the Wiki happening with someone creating nonsensical user names to vandalize our pages after I disabled unregistered user editing for the same reason. Can you lock new users from being created or something??? Because I have already blocked at least three new accounts for this.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 05:45, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Our vandal, through a sock puppet account, posted this on my talk page when he erased it one time: Zane you blocked me not that long ago infinitely. For have more than one account.

Obviously I'm not Zane but that ThomasNeeley guy thinks this is someone named Steven who Zane had trouble with recently. There's a whole thing about that on the Admin Noticeboard Talk page. Something needs to be done here.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 06:06, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

We may have an even bigger problem. I was going back over all the edits that were made. and i noticed a pattern. Spnfan did not use the undo button when he undid the attack edits. none of the bytes match. and on the season pages they were really messed up after he "helped". most of the active admin talk pages were all hit were undone with just a few bites difference. We can't ever revert the edits back to a earlier time without losing everything that happened tonight. the ingerty of the talk pages, and any evidence on them of past misdeeds or patterns, is no longer intact.--ThomasNealy (talk) 06:51, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed all the excitement, but it seems you all did okay and restored things to normal. Nice work. I don't have time this morning to look through things in depth, but I will do so this evening. On the issue of Spnfan, I would be very careful before making such claims. If you one clear example of him changing something he was not supposed to change in his undo, then you have a case, if not, you should refrain from making some claims. For a few bytes' difference, it could very well be just a case of the Visual Editor doing its thing. Alternatively, you can head to a previous version of the page and revert the article to that - if you're unsure. I don't think there's an issue with the integrity of the talkpages just because of this - but you can always double-check to make sure. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 13:22, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Look at the 3 seasons pages he "fixed" that takes deliberate editing to make. he would had to add the title card and all new divs for each episode in the season. 20k extra bytes is not just a few. I will give that on my talk page there was only 1 byte difference, which does not mean no changes were made either,just that they would be harder to spot. but I still restored the page to before the attack and added back my convo with WG after just to be on the safe side( I would like to do the same to the others but I don't want to edit someone else's tak page like that without permission). How ever I stand by the changes made to the season pages. That would have taken at least 10 minutes to make. even with copy and paste. It also implies that either he new about the attack on those pages before it started and had his fix ready to go or he was going to vandalize the page any way and used the attack as cover. Season 1, 7 and 10. They are reason why I started to get suspicious in the first place. I have not looked through the talk pages to see if there are any differences yet other then the byte count. --ThomasNealy (talk) 13:34, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Have you asked him point-blank how those divs got into the page? Calebchiam Talk 13:48, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

No brought up past suspicions and he threatened to report me. I figured it would be better if another took over since I can be viewed as compromised given my history with the user. WG seems to have suspicions about him as well but I did get him involved. both Zane and I could be considered compromised on the issue of this user due to unresolved suspicions during the sock puppet incident.--ThomasNealy (talk) 13:55, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Those divs can be explained by them copy/pasting from the article or while using the Rich-Text editor.

Orion ( T - B -C) 14:10, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at the coding? its completely different from the code stile of the correct episode portion.

+	! bgcolor="#111111" |Image +	! bgcolor="#111111" |Title +	! bgcolor="#111111" |Writer(s) +	! bgcolor="#111111" |Director(s) +	! bgcolor="#111111" |Airdate +	! bgcolor="#111111" |# +
 * style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; background: #222222; border: 1px #222222 solid; border-collapse: collapse;" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" border="1" width="95%"

+	 	+	 	+	 	+	 	+	 	+	 	+	 	+	can that be done by mistake? all 22 episodes on all three season pages are like that--ThomasNealy (talk) 14:23, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * - itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/TVEpisode"
 * bgcolor="#111111" rowspan="2" |[[Image:Season1TitleCard.gif|center|300x168px]]
 * bgcolor="#111111" style="font-size:110%; color:#444444" itemprop="name"| Pilot
 * bgcolor="#111111" itemprop="creator" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"| Writer: Eric Kripke
 * bgcolor="#111111" itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"| Director: David Nutter
 * bgcolor="#111111"|9/13/2005
 * bgcolor="#111111"|# 1 101
 * colspan="5" itemprop="description"|SAM AND DEAN WINCHESTER FIGHT A WOMAN IN WHITE IN THE SERIES PREMIERE - Two brothers, Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles), witness their mother's paranormal death as children and grow up trained to fight by a distraught father who wants nothing more then to hunt down the thing that killed his wife. Sam escapes to college to start a new, normal life, but gets pulled back in after Dean shows up on his doorstep to tell him their father is missing. Following clues from an eerie phone message from him, the boys travel to a small town and encounter a vengeful spirit called the "Woman in White" who then starts to haunt Sam.

Yes, it can. It's a common mistake from people who don't understand how Wikia works and are trying to do something they don't know how to do.

Orion ( T - B -C) 14:26, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

not knowing what he is doing I can understand. but this was not copy and paste error. this was done this way because he was altering the page. and he hid the changes behind fixing the page during the attack. linking to an off wiki site and changing the formatting which was decided on by consensus. --ThomasNealy (talk) 14:33, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Lookie here: Template:Season

What do you see?

EDIT: Like I said, it's not malice, it's people who don't know what they're doing.

Orion ( T - B -C) 14:37, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * so you were saying it was a copy paste from the raw code of the template not the page it self? the makes sense. now explain the image change? why this was done in the first place instead of just undoing the attack? the timing off all this is just all off. And given the attack last night that we fended off I would rather be suspicious and paranoid until we know for sure then just let things slide. --ThomasNealy (talk) 14:48, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that neither you nor Spnfan079 know how Wikia works, and so they copy/pasted when they shouldn't have, and you believe it was malice when you shouldn't. Apparently, I was too subtle in implying you don't know how things work. -- Orion  ( T - B -C) 14:51, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * I know enough to know that the image link did not just change by it self. Also there would have no reason for him to copy and paste anything he has used the undo button before he knows how to use it. Can you keep your personal issues with me out of it and worry about the fact that we were attacked last night? --ThomasNealy (talk) 14:56, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * I could explain everything you said, which shows you don't know enough. Just trust me, it was not malice. -- Orion  ( T - B -C) 14:58, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * then you need to explain because otherwise this still looks suspicious as hell man. and this user has been suspected of this kinda stuff before but we never had enough proof to say he was the same user or not. This is not the time for who's is bigger contest. This is about the security and integrity of the wiki. So for those of use that are not blessed with your perfect knowledge expand on your reasons and explanation. --ThomasNealy (talk) 15:16, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Children please stop arguing. You sound barely old enough to watch this show let alone comment on it.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:40, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * WarGrowlmon18, shut it and shove it. ThomasNealy, do you act 100% rationally all the time? No, you do not. You were "freaked out", as you put it, and made mistakes. Spnfan079 made mistakes as well. He/She must've had a tab open with how the articles should look and then copy/pasted the contents, resulting in the mess you saw. He/She was working to undo the vandalism. If he/she was trying to vandalize, then going to all the trouble of writing an additional 20-25k of text and then change it to suit each article is just nonsensical. Don't try to go the Zane T 69 route of banning users you don't like by any means necessary. -- Orion  ( T - B -C) 18:01, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is it that every time you get involved the conversation turns toxic? This has nothing to do with banning people I don't like. The user is linked to a past instance that the vandal in question caused issues on the wiki. Second Dtol is now having issues editing the season pages it keeps throwing the same problem. so if you really know what is going on you need to tell us. Is something broke on the wiki or did one of the templates get messed up?--ThomasNealy (talk) 18:10, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who came in here accusing others of vandalism or calling people childish. I'll have a look, see what I can do. -- Orion  ( T - B -C) 18:17, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to infinite ban all of the sockpuppets registered? We need to prevent those account from being re-used and possibly report this to wikia and pursue a global block if possible. Zane T 69 (talk) 14:44, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Tell me about it. You have no idea how freaked out I was last night. I had to get VTSF to help because we were having a hard time keeping up. they were the ones that told us to block unregistered users. which lead to them making accounts to do it instead. Blocks do not seem to matter at all to them. They are using some form of VPN or proxy, maybe even a Tor. I honestly don't know if there is anything we can do unless Wika gets reworld police involved and tracks the guy down. --ThomasNealy (talk) 14:56, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

We can infinite ban the registered users, which I'm gonna go ahead and do. If they do vandalize our wiki again that's a few less accounts they can use. I need someone who actually experienced the attack and is up to date on information to report this to wikia with your suspicions on perpetrators. Also, they can go ahead and request a check-user on that Spn guy too. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:29, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

WG and I were the only ones on I think other then the Spn guy (besides the VSTF people that helped us out). if an admin needs to do it then he will have to. other wise i can if you can tell me what to do? --ThomasNealy (talk) 15:34, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

Thomas you need Admin power to block anyone. Do you have Admin power??? And I agree about the infinite blocks. Those are very obviously sockpuppet accounts, just look at the nonsensical names attached to each!!! There's three that I know of and blocked last night.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:40, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * no I don't, but i don't want to block people we were talking about reporting the whole thing to Wikia. I was not sure if i could since I'm not an admin. the Mod rank does not come with the block stuff. I actually never thought I would have wanted that power either. But last night it would have come in handy. Still don't want the ability though.--ThomasNealy (talk) 15:46, February 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, its not something I ever really use except against unregistered users like from last night or to lock pages from new and unregistered users if they are going overboard with bad edits.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:55, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

As for the issue on the SPNfan guy, frankly I don't know if he has anything to do with this but I think that possibility should be investigated. From the looks of it, he was suspiciously around the last time this stuff happened. Its too coincidental not to investigate the possibility at least.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 15:40, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * On Spnfan079, I'm going to have to agree with Orion here that it is unlikely to be malicious. There are a few reasons for this. For one thing, if it was vandalism, it wasn't particularly damaging. A template was repeated, with duplicate information, with links to an external site that did not contain any offensive content. This is unnecessary but it doesn't deface the per se. Secondly, it was very obvious from the byte difference that there was a change, so it's not exactly subtle.


 * I still think it's likely that it's a VisualEditor issue. While I've not personally seen this kind of change by it, it's not exactly unheard of. The fact that the template inserted contained the default information encoded in the template definition supports this hypothesis.


 * As a matter of principle as well, I think someone should have just asked Spnfan079 point-blank whether he knew what was causing it. All the comments left on his page have been vaguely insinuating that he was involved in the attack - but not one has actually asked him if he knows why some of his edits changed what they did. Note also that he did successfully undo some of the vandalism (with the trademark deletion of blank lines that's typical of the VisualEditor.) Based on these factors, I don't see any reason to suspect Spnfan079 or any indication that further investigation is necessary. Perhaps if in one of his undos he had changed something surreptitiously would you then have a case. But at this juncture, it just seems like a user with a broken editor. If you have any concerns about any of the pages he has edited (talk pages included), feel free to revert to an earlier version and add in the new content (e.g. messages) to the page yourself. I don't think anyone would complain if you explained what you were doing. Calebchiam Talk 22:11, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, sockpuppets (whether created for vandalism or for gaming the system) can absolutely be blocked for an indefinite period of time. They are not legitimate users and can thus be blocked without hesitation if it is clear that they were created just to cause damage. (E.g. The account was created an hour ago and has gone on a vandalism spree with no signs of stopping.)

I have also lifted the Wiki-wide lock on anonymous user editing. The lock should not actually have been left on for that long - in fact, it only works to the perpetrator's advantage because he/she knows that normal Wiki operations and contributions are being disrupted for as long as the lock is active. I will be monitoring the recent changes over the next few hours in case anything goes awry. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 22:16, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Closing a consensus
Could you close this and give the decision. Talk:Monster it seems you are the only neutral admin for this topic. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:12, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

have you had a chance to look at this yet?--ThomasNealy (talk) 18:32, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Replacement template for the Season template
I worked on improving the currently used Season template, and while I can't explain why the text is in bold, I think I succeeded. Check my profile page for how it looks and how to use it.

EDIT: To be clear, I want to know where I can request that this replacement be approved for widespread wiki use.

Orion ( T - B -C) 23:44, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Re: DIscussion Closures
Hey, sorry for the late response. I've been working nonstop and barely had the time to access a good desktop to work on the wiki. I'm glad I caught the monster discussion before the due date. I'll work on it now--hopefully there is a consensus to be made. FTWinchester (talk) 01:58, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

ImperiexSeed Sockpuppet
Hey, Caleb. We might have a possible ImperiexSeed sockpuppet, as seen here: link. Is that enough proof or do we need more evidence? They also edited in another name before putting the correct signature for the account in question. If that is enough proof, can I give him the same Infinite Ban given to his main account? Zane T 69 (talk) 01:07, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

PsychoVenom was infinite banned on Marvel wiki and shares 3 wikis in common with Imperiex. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:13, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

I'll request a check-user, and maybe they'll eventually make me a check-user. I do that with fandom support, right? It's been a while and I forgot. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:39, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the admins to let me convert info on Death in order to be more correct, and one of them, Dtol, said she won't, essentially, because she said so. Death is simply a horsemen, and here is my evidence:


 * Amara's statement of her not knowing who Death is, brings into his statement of being as old or older than God. And, off of this wiki's definition of 'primordial entity,' his status of being counted as such, is suspicious.
 * The depletion in famine cut Famine's power seriously, showing that horsemen draw their power from their attribute. Additionally, when Sam and Dean confronted War, he stated he couldn't be killed, meaning he is tied to his attribute.
 * Death wasn't affected by losing his ring, because he gave it up and didn't get his ring-finger chopped off. The men who were appointed to represent War and Pestilence, were left in a catatonic state, but substitutes could be chosen if God wanted to.

Thought I'd inform you of this. -ParasiticCarroll (talk) 05:12, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

There has been and currently is a debate for this. This wiki is run on consensus. What you are doing is forum shopping because you do not like the way it is going. That is why dtol won't change it. Please stop forum shopping. ThomasNealy (talk) 10:19, February 24, 2018 (UTC)