User talk:Zane T 69

Welcome
Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Andrew Gallagher page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help you with anything! Also note that we are in the process of converting articles written in the present tense to the past tense. So you are welcome to edit any such article you come across. Once again, Welcome! Twilight Despair 5 (talk) 17:35, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

He states God is A not The supremely powerful entity. That means among the beings of SPN he is one the most powerful, not the most powerful. However some of the powers he gave God isn't true. Also God in SPN is based of the Christian God, but the writes made him more human and not as powerful but I agree, he is trying to draw more parallels to the real-life image of God.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 17:48, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

So your saying God isn't of the same class of supremacy as Amara or Death? That's what I understand by saying supremely. It means highest of something, not omnipotent. But don't need my permission to talk to him.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 18:11, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Amara and God are equals, SHE even said so. She might be overall stronger buy still. And yes Supremely can mean highest of something. But it CAN be used to describe all the members of an equal standing. Like the Supreme Court, all of them have Supremacy compared to the lower ones. No being in SPN is almighty, but at least the three strongest are within the same class of supremacy. And that's all I'll say on that matter.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 18:31, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I can't do anything this weekend. Message all the admins, if they don't message back by Friday I'll make a decision.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 02:12, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think that anonymous user should be reported, but oh well also thank you for telling me information about reporting since I'm quite new and I will look into the wiki improvement blog :).MichaelTheDragon (talk) 02:13, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Vandal
Thank you for your vigilance. A temporary ban (I can't do longer than 3 days as it has not continued so far) has been placed. FTWinchester (talk) 13:19, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous was temporarily blocked. Thank you. FTWinchester (talk) 17:30, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Said anon ony did it once and has never followed up 3 days after, I can really only issue a warning. FTWinchester (talk) 22:17, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Nomination page
The content is fine, but we need to use the proper link/page. I'm working on it now. Give me a few minutes. FTWinchester (talk) 23:21, June 19, 2016 (UTC)

Here  is your new rfa page. There are a two questions I personally wanted you to expound a bit more, if you don't mind. Please don't take it personally. It's just due process. Good luck! FTWinchester (talk) 23:29, June 19, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Nomination
It's been almost a week since your rfa. No one has voiced opposition so far, so soft consensus (i.e., silence) may be invoked. However, we are at a roadblock since neither TD5 nor I are beaurocrats. I don't think it's within our power to grant you adminship even if we wanted to. I'll try to leave Caleb a message. He usually logs in a few days after I message him. Hopefully, we'll get things going as soon as possible. If worse comes to worst, we would have to contact higher wikia powers to step in and solve the stand still as Caleb is the last known active beaurocrat I've known or contacted, even, since I joined here. FTWinchester (talk) 17:36, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

I don't really want to actively pursue being a bcrat but if the community deems it absolutely necessary, then I shall reconsider. Anyway, let's give Caleb 3 days to respond, and if not, we'll go higher up the hierarchy just to follow procedure. I know he hasn't been active for a while but I wouldn't want us to be questioned for not trying at the very least. FTWinchester (talk) 17:50, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

There, Caleb is back for the time being. I would recommend you to try to convince more members to weigh in on your rfa as that would support your case better if they side with you. It doesn't look too good that only I and TD5 have voiced support. I mean, like I said, sofr consensus may be invoked, but your case will be stronger with actual inputs in the rfa. Good luck! FTWinchester (talk) 11:44, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Your rfa ends tomorrow. If you have anything else to add on to your answers or if you have more contributors to convince to weigh in, now would be the time. Again, best of luck! FTWinchester (talk) 22:26, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, their silence could be interpreted as soft consensus. You have no explicit contradictions. I think your rfa should push through. Caleb told me he will be logging in once the rfa ends to review and to make sure everything is in order. Once there are no more concerns, he will message you and give you your additional powers, privileges and responsibilities. I will also message him tonight so he would remember tomorrow. Just to be sure. FTWinchester (talk) 23:09, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Nomination
Well, I'll vote but I don't have an exact link of the nomination page of yours. SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:36, June 26, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

RFA
I'd rather not get involved, one way or another. EDIT: If I wanted to influence wiki policy, I'd become an admin myself.

Orion ( T - B -C) 15:43, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

That's what they keep telling me.

Orion ( T - B -C) 15:49, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

The power conjuration should be changed to creation. Conjuration summons beings or objects out of nothing via a spell. While creation is the ability to create virtually anything from nothing on a near-infinite to infinite scale via ones own power. Please change.

Conjuration can be synonymous with creation. Also who is this person advertising a number?&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 23:22, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Adminship
Congratulations on your successful RfA!

You can now do the following:


 * Edit and move fully protected pages
 * Delete, restore, and view deleted revisions of pages and images
 * Protect pages from edits, moves, or creation by non-sysops
 * Block and unblock users and IP addresses and ranges
 * Edit the interface pages in the MediaWiki: namespace
 * View Special:Unwatchedpages

If you have any questions, just ask. In response to your message, an 'evil emperor' scenario seems unlikely - I'd desysop you before you got to do too much damage. My concern lies with the less obvious facets: handing out unnecessarily severe blocks, being unreasonable when encountering users who disagree with you (and there will be plenty, I'm sure.) Consider it a leap of faith on my part as well, I hope you do well with these extra tools. Be sure to brush up on our policies.

If you wish to improve your editing and knowledge of Wiki markup, I recommend you read through this simple guide from my home Wiki. Other stuff you will have to learn by doing. You should also go to Special:Preferences -> Editing Tab -> and set your preferred editor to 'Source Editor' if you haven't already. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 03:29, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Re:First issue
If I'm not mistaken, this involves editing certain Mediawiki header pages to reflect the needed. Perhaps one of the other admins might be more familiar with this; it's outside my expertise at the moment. The admin noticeboard sounds reasonable. You can give it a go and create one at "Supernatural Wiki:Admin Noticeboard". Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:18, July 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * From experimenting with MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation, it seems that there's a limit to the number of tabs we can create (four, actually.) This is probably a changeable configuration set by a different MediaWiki page. Regarding the changes you are making, take note that 'Staff' is a termed reserved for Wikia Staff, so let's use 'Administrators' or 'Admins' instead, cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:30, July 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your adminship. It seems Caleb has already answered your question. As for the difficulty, yes. I ran into similar problems in the past. Some things I would like to do would be severely limited by my ability to code. You could study basics, though. That's what I did for a bit and relied on trial and error. FTWinchester (talk) 08:21, July 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh and by the way, if in case you are unable to add a link to admins on the header, the new community page does feature a link to a list of admins, so there's that. It's not outright visible but at least it's added accessibility. May your adminship be true and just. FTWinchester (talk) 08:27, July 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you point me to that discussion? I never heard about photos exclusively used on user pages to be forbidden, unless they are offensive, misleading, or something of the likes. FTWinchester (talk) 21:57, July 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we need a better context into that. By the looks of it, there were a number of photos in question. The actual subject of the photos may also literally mean personal as in featuring photos of the contributor. We've had several editors with one or two photos in their user pages and they never received warnings like that. FTWinchester (talk) 22:06, July 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * You certainly could, but keep in mind that it's a low-benefit activity in the sense that while we are ensuring a principle is followed, there may be other more urgent tasks you may wish to focus on instead. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 15:14, July 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * For technical coding matters beyond your expertise, you can try the active users or Wikia Staff on Community Central. They're usually more than happy to help. Calebchiam Talk 01:01, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Photos
Oh yeah I would say definitely as they are very offensive and have no relevance to Supernatural. Check the activity of the users. If they are still fairly active, I'd make the ban more severe for more gravity. FTWinchester (talk) 16:49, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

I think that should suffice for now. FTWinchester (talk) 17:02, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Do a screencap if you like. But generally other admins would have access to previously deleted images if they really need to investigate. Don't forget to sign your comment on Salvatore's page. FTWinchester (talk) 17:05, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Talk Page content
As much as I hate the information this user put in her talk page, deleting any content from a talk page is not allowed as it prevents future reviews and investigations. Please rollback/undo your deletion and then re-write your warning. Thank you. FTWinchester (talk) 23:03, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

RE: Reverted edit
Because of this.

Orion ( T - B -C) 20:33, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

You don't see the ton of excess spaces in the difference between edits?

Orion ( T - B -C) 20:41, July 13, 2016 (UTC)