Hey. I've never heard of a "watlock", so I'm pretty sure he is just screwing with the page. Don't worry, I'll take care of it. :) EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 05:06, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to Supernatural Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Heaven 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! ImperiexSeed (talk) 21:18, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Reapers are not angels
Dean usage of the word "angel" could diversely have many implications. You're position that reapers are type or form of angel has not been confirmed and is pathetically unsound. Reapers erupting in bright light does not necessarily make them angels, cause, at the moment, it's just a similarity. And it's never been said that reapers require permission to possess someone. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:50 AM, June 1st 2014
So basically what you are saying is that if a cloud of black smoke goes into a body, Dean calls it a demon, and stabs it, then it emits the oranges light a demon does when it dies, we do not list it as a demon on the wiki? -- Dean.winchestor.54, 4:16 PM, June 1st 2014
Well, by now, black smoke definitely means demon. Cause we've never seen anything with black smoke as a form other than demons. So you're saying ANYTHING, no exceptions, that explodes in a burst of bright light while dying is unquestionably an angel? A lot of things made of energy would explode in a bright flash of energy, but that certainly doesn't automatically make them an angel. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:51 PM, June 1st 2014
That isn't the only thing that makes them an angel, it was only a detail. Yes there are other creatures that explode with blue/while light, but they are all different, like when the goddess exploded with blue fire, but with reapers it is the exact same as with angels. The show clearly indicates that they are angels. Dean even says it.
Yeah....I know. I'll let you get away with calling them angels for now but, as recent changes seen on the news feed prove, I'm done putting in any more time arguing about this, but if they're ever differentiated as being their own species, I'll swiftly edit accordingly. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:35 AM, June 2nd 2014
I am only calling them angels because that is what the show is telling us. I am with you though, I hate that they changed them, and wish they were there own beings. I hope they clear this up next season.
Yeah, it's unknown how deities, not counting God, came about, whether through creation or tulpa. It's a very, very pliable theory I have, however it's still unproven. So, can't include it on pages. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:01 PM, June 4th 2014
The computer I've been fancily using lately, as you know, has this terrible proneness and predilection for its connection to flicker on and off. I think, though, maybe this time it could have been your connection, but anyway, just wanted to let you know I wasn't ignoring you on Facebook and responded to every message you sent me but, obviously, they didn't go through. I'll try again when I can, but if we don't talk for a while, I can't accentuate this enough, don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond, cause I'm not, I look forward to getting to talk to you when I can. Take care. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:16 AM< August 3rd 2014
Please take a closer look at the canon and transcripts before you overhaul major articles. While regular angels had not been named as a class, it is obvious that they do exist as a separate class. In fact, read the talk page for Seraphs alone and you will see how different Seraphs were from regular angels. I could stretch this on and on, and to be frank, I only know of one or two users here that I haven't fully convinced on debates such as this when I go all out. I don't want to and I don't have the time. FTWinchester (talk) 00:03, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Look, you are just being stubborn. You have no evidence from the show to support that there is an angel class. I have already proven, by canon, that there is none, and it is archangel>seraph>Cupid. You are being arrogant, and just don't want to except the facts. I will change the wikia, because it is correct. I have debated several people on this, and have one each time. I have evidence and you don't. Sure Cass appears to have more abilities after the kripke era, but that still is not proof (as mine is) and lots of things changed after kripke left. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 00:13, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Actually I have proven it. Archangels are 1st class, cupids are 3rd (SAID IN THE SHOW) and that leaves room for only ONE more. The means only Seraphim is under archangel and over Cherubim....and I talked to L4D2 Ellis, Imperiexseed (the admin), and Merrystar (the wikia staff member), they all disagreed with me just like you, and were resistant to give in, but they finally exempted the truth. 1 is an admin, and another is a STAFF MEMBER. the agreed that it was proof and it should be changed on the wiki, so it will be Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 00:22, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
No, you haven't. Your basic premise breaks from the following two statements: (1) the phrase "third class" could also mean simply as a "lower class", not necessarily that there are only three classes. And (2) it's funny how you claim there are only three classes when both Rit Ziens and the damned reapers exist as separate angel classes as well, racking up a total of 5.
Zachariah's own words when he first appeared "I'm hardly another one [angel]," dismissing Dean's statement that Zachariah was just another angel. How naive of you to think there are no classes separating powerful angels like Gamble-era-Castiel, Zachariah and Naomi from regular foot soldiers who do nothing but die. Even Joshua himself was simply a gardener, and Metatron described himself only to be a scribe--hardly the definition of the other angels we see who were warriors. Naomi's entire command were ranked higher--they knew of the programming and reprogramming of regular angels. They were obviously separate. In fact, in Naomi's case, she could very well be an entire class to herself. Just because other classes had no names doesn't mean that they don't exist.
This wikia operates by consensus. I don't consent. So you need to humor me. And adminship doesn't define what the consensus is--I've butted heads with Imperiex several times. FTWinchester (talk) 00:35, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, *cracks knuckles* we can't just assume that Castiel ment lower class by saying "third class", he said 3rd, so as a canoligical wiki, we need to put it as the show literally states, not what we think it means. 2nd of all, I never ever said that there were only 3 classes. I said that Cupids were the third class, but I never said it stopped there. I only stated that it went in this order archangels>seraphim>cupids>etc. I never said there were only three. And we also can't just imply that Zacheriah stating "I'm hardly just another one of them...I'm Castiel's superior." To mean that he is a whole other class of angel than Castiel. Castiel was Uriel's superior once, that doesn't mean they were different classes of angel. Uriel was also Castiel's superior at one time, but they were still the same class of angel. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 00:45, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
- So you're telling me that even when Season 8 (through Ion's words) was careful enough to differentiate that there was a substantial difference between Naomi and her division and 'soldiers' down the garrison, and at the same episode, Metatron calls himself a 'run-of-the-mill' (a.k.a. ordinary, regular, common, basic) angel of a secretarial position, they were all, all those times, Seraphs? No distinction at all regardless of their roles and capabilities? The term 'Seraph' was in fact never canonically stated explicitly until Castiel described himself (this was also Season 8 btw), and this now automatically applies to everyone who wasn't an archangel, a cupid, a rit zien or a reaper? So if the term 'Seraph' has always been meant to describe the vanilla angel class, you'd think they would actually start using the term ever since, instead of reserving it to an angel who has displayed several advanced abilities and been described as 'new and improved'.
- Speaking of "new and improved", your line of thinking that this only meant he got his wings back is faulty at best. Despite being weaker, he was still an angel. Even if you say having his full powers back would mean he was relatively "improved", this doesn't explain the "new" part. In fact, if "new and improved" only meant he got back his full power, how come he actually had more than the powers he originally had? How come when he was pulled back from his first death in the Season 4 finale, he still could not undo Zachariah's biokinetic tricks himself? His resurrection in Season 5 and feats following that was significantly better than when he was first resurrected in season 4-5 interim. It's "new AND improved".
- Crowley was not afraid of angels for the most part since he became King of Hell. Have you noticed with which angels he actually fled from? Castiel and Naomi (before Crowley fashioned his gun). a.k.a., also the only two angels alive at the time that demonstrated the white light, among other powerful feats, and later, Metatron, who, might I remind you, described himself as a 'run-of-the-mill' angel, who was elevated, and then showed the capability to use white light as well. Again, the term 'Seraph' was used only by Castiel to describe himself--an angel we know who possessed advanced powers. Is it then logical to assume this term is a catch-all to the remainder of the angel race, rather than only to those who were similar to his degree of power? Also consider how Castiel used this term in the context of Leviathans (who Castiel could somehow stand up to even in their home turf), when two angels you claim to be the same class as him got decimated completely? FTWinchester (talk) 03:02, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Look, I could debate you all day on this, but I don't have the time. First of all, and hear me good.....my point is that archangels are 1 and cupids are 3, leaving seraph as 2. My point is a canological fact, as it is flat out stated on the show. ALL of your points are just assumptions. I could argue each and every one of them, but in the end, it would just come back to Archangel>Seraph>Cupid. For example, when Metatron said he was an ordinary "run of the mill" angel, HE MEANT SERAPH. That is my whole point! Seraphim ARE the normal angels. And when was it ever said/implied that Crowley doesn't fear angels? The only time he wasn't afraid of them, was when he was up against a reaper (a very low angel) and when Samandriel and Gadreel were bound. Of coarse he isn't afraid of angels who couldn't do anything to him. And about the Leviathan thing...Those angels didn't know that it was a leviathan, and were caught by surprise. Castiel actually had the beasts in him, and knew them. He could see who was who, and how to stop, hurt and kill them. I think that might give him more of an advantage than the angels who had no idea what was going on. The last point that I will counter is Zachariah. When Castiel told him to "put these boys back together" he could have simply been acting tough, threatening him to show his authority. Even if I couldn't counter any of your points, I would still have the upper hand, because every single one of your points is pure assumption, while mine is flat out stated on the show. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 04:04, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Your designations of classes are unfounded and unmentioned. "Third class" was mentioned, yes, but first or second class weren't, so "third class" could mean anything. And there's a large power gap between Castiel's capabilities (since season six) and Metatron's, where they're clearly not of the same class. Not everything that isn't outright stated can't be shown to be fact through implication, innuendo, or inference. For example, the cupid has nowhere been outright stated to be the weakest (and you still haven't proven what Cas meant when he said "third class") type of angel, however it's highly estimated by how they showed their capabilities compared to others. So, assumption based on a large number or substantiation of information can, then, be called fact. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:33 AM, June 9th 2014
First of all, reread your paragraph before you publish it next time. Second of all, like I said before, there is more evidence from the show supporting my hypothesis. Archangels are the first angels created, making them first class. Metatron said that when god left, the archangels took over the universe; that means they were 2nd to god in power, and above all the other classes of angels. For the Cupid thing, we can't just assume that (third class) was a metaphor. What if Castiel said on the show that he killed a demon in a fight. Killed can be used to describe how bad you beat someone at a game. Castiel COULD have meant that that he was way better than the demon, and he never stood a chance. It could have meant this, but we have to take it literally until the show says otherwise. Again...archangel>seraph>cupid. And about the "power gap" between Castiel (season 6) and metatron. I do believe Metatatron (before being powered by the angel tablet) was able to kill Naomi, take Castiel hostage, and take his grace. That doesn't seem like a lack of power. And what abilities does Castiel have that it has been told/shown that metatron does not have? Again, you can't assume that metatron doesn't have all of Castiel's seraph abilities just because he hasn't used them. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 18:08, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
No....Death is second to God in power. Yes, they are above all other classes of angels but the term "first class" was never used to describe them, so you're therein baseless. It's still unclear, other than by power, how angels are separated. So, classing them in classes might be inappropriate, depending. Saying you 'killed' in that you annihilated them senselessly is gamer-talk and a lot different than a metaphor. A metaphor's a lot different and easier to perceive. He most likely caught him off guard when Castiel teleported into Heaven. Ha, it he was he'd would've just forcefully restrained Castiel instead of strapping him down and taken his grace. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:36 PM, June 9th 2014
1st of all, when the archangels took over Heaven, Death was still locked 6,000 feet under the earth, so as I said before, they were 2nd to God. what do you mean it was never said there were angel classes? What do you think an archangel is? It's a type (a class) of angel. That is what class means, section. It doesn't matter if the "killing" metaphor is to hard to disipher, it still proves my point. You can't just assume that he was using the word incorrectly. He said 3rd class, as well as lower level. Why would he say the same thing twice? Aslo, before he said "third class" he said "technically" that means literally. So it isn't a metaphor, and we can't assume it is. Also Metatron restraining Castiel doesn't mean anything. Naomi had to restrain Metatron, and it is just pure assumption that Metatron only got Castiel because he took him by suprize. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 18:49, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
The idea of seraph existed in writing room at least during season five (with Zachariah's angelic description of himself), so why didn't any angel use the term "seraph" to describe themselves till season eight? ....No.. Death is second to God regardless, however the archangels were the only type of heavenly beings strong enough to fill God's shoes. I know what it means. Metatron was looked as the nerd angel, he's one of those pocket-protector-types. Like FTWinchester pointed out, Zachariah's quote would've made no sense if all the angels we knew at the time (Castiel, Uriel, Anna) were seraphs, cause then he would be just another one. -- ImperiexSeed], 3:09 PM, June 9th 2014
Regardles of the points you made, it is still speculation, while mine was stated on the show. But I will still counter them...if a bunch of red ants call them selves ants, but one called himself a red ant (specifically) does that mean the other red ants aren't red ants? It doesn't matter if they never said they are seraphim. Did zacheriah point him self out a seraph? Sure, but that doesn't mean the others aren't. And I have already debated this with FTWinchester (and this too is just speculation) but when Zacheriah said he was "hardly another one" he specified afterward by saying he was Castiel's superior. Castiel was Uriel's s superior, does that make him an entire class above him? Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 19:26, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
I. On Assumptions
Pray, do tell me, which is the bigger assumption? That the term Castiel used to describe himself refer to angels that arent archangels, cherubs, rit ziens or reapers, or that the term only refers to angels most alike Castiel post-Swan Song? Which claim stretches the definition more? One could even argue that both are assumptions so neither are correct. Point is, you are also using assumptions to support one line of canon that by itself could be interpreted in different ways (look at NaiflidG's response to the talk page), and could easily have been retconned in the new eras. Even your response that Castiel was just trying to intimidate Zachariah was an assumption by itself. Castiel obviously couldn't. Otherwise, he would not follow it with "I won't ask twice." Castiel could have just patched the Winchesters himself AND kill Zachariah if he really felt like it, or even kill Zach first, then patch the boys after, if it really was in his power. After all, his friends are dying from stage IV cancer and lack of lungs, you'd think it would be his priority to get them to tip-top shape rather than intimidate a rival angel. Besides, he was drawing on the possibility that God himself revived Castiel as the main source of fear for Zachariah, and not by Castiel's own power, as evidenced by this conversation:
- Castiel: How did these two end up on that airplane? Another good question, because the angels didn't do it. I think we both know the answer, don't we?
- Zachariah: No... It's not possible.
- Castiel: It scares you. Well, it should. Now, put these boys back together, and go. I won't ask twice.
Might I also remind you that your dismissal to Zachariah's line "hardly another one", and Castiel's "new and improved" is about the same as us saying "third class" can have different interpretations.
II. Explicit vs. Implicit, Contextual Clues
While we don't have a solid explicit canon statement like your claim (which, again, could be interpreted variously as several members have shown in the talk page), there are several implicit cues that support the idea that there are several ranks for the 'ungrouped' angels.
Why point out Castiel was a Seraph? What was the need if it did not make him any more special than other regular angels (when he clearly was different and far more powerful)? Why stress differences between the intelligence angels and the regular foot soldiers? These gaps were already evident in Seasons 4 and 5, and although it was quite vague on how different angels were from each other, it was often stressed how someone belonged to 'senior management', and how someone was not. Season 8 reinforced and cemented those gaps. Also, take a look at Carver's statement regarding Naomi, whom he described as a "new breed" of angel we've never seen before. Are you going to ignore that commentary by the current, albeit poor and distasteful, showrunner?
Let's take a closer look at the powerful, non-archangel angels, shall we?
Zachariah - was in direct communication with the archangel Michael, described as part of Heaven's 'upper/senior management', was extremely powerful, easily bossed lower angels around and was part of the mastermind plot that excluded the foot-soldier angels, easily obliterated demons that raided John's lock-up
Naomi - was in direct communication with the archangels, was tasked by the archangels to debrief Metatron (then already a powerful angel himself), could program and reprogram angels, even powerful ones like the Seraph Castiel, leader of the 'intelligence division' and part of the heavenly host that held privy to plots not accessible to lower celestials, leader of one of the major factions vying control for Heaven, scared off a high-tier demon like Crowley, capable of using white light, succesfully devised a plan to rescue a Seraph from the home-turf of Leviathans, where plenty of Old Ones were prowling
"New and improved" Castiel - revived several times by an unknown power (but implied to be God), challenged an archangel's leadership, was considerably powerful, led half of the Heavenly host and even ruled the entirety of Heaven at one point, capable of using white light, could obliterate demons with ease, and even scared off a high-tier demon like Crowley, capable of standing up to Leviathans, literally the only one who explicitly described himself as a seraph
Metatron - described himself as an ordinary angel but was elevated by God, and therefore was in direct communication with God, one of the few angels aware of the secret plans of the heavenly host for the apocalypse, ruled Heaven at one point, capable of using white light and scared off a high-tier demon like Crowley, has knowledge of how to destroy Leviathans (from writing down the word of God)
Considering these incredible feats and the similarities among these four in terms of strength against demons and leviathans and organizational power against their lesser brethren, and the fact that they alluded or called themselves far more powerful than other regular angels, I find it hard to believe they were all just Seraphs.
In the case of Metatron, he clearly said himself he was an ordinary angel BUT was elevated by God Himself, which allowed Metatron to go against Naomi, use the white light and perform other powerful feats. So, I will ask you again. Which is a bigger assumption? Using the term 'Seraph' to include only those similar to Castiel's status, or using it to describe the remainder of the heavenly host? FTWinchester (talk) 00:51, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
Your first argument is invalid, because mine is not an assumption. I wasn't trying to give a proven answer for the Zachariah thing. I was just giving an alternative explanation, because I have already proven there is the angel class. And the "New and Improved" statement, and the "third class" can't even be compared! New and improved leaves a variety of options and scenarios, and is left open for evaluation. Third class, however is a specific number, and we can't assume it is a metaphor unless the show says other wise. And I am not setting it in stone that there is no angel class, only no angel class higher than cherubim. If you think Castiel and most of the angels were weaker than Cupids, than you obviously need to watch the show more. Those angels that you listed were not powerful in power. Metatron was given knowledge, Naomi had experience in torture/brainwash, and Zacheriah shows no ability that was flat out stated on other ordinary angel has. We can't assume the other angels don't have that power, because we haven't seen them use it. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 01:07, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
"New and improved" means new and improved. Yet you insist that it means he was "restored" instead of "improved", just as I insist that "third class" could be used to describe a "lower class". This is a double-edged sword, mate--both statements could be interpreted literally or figuratively. He was elevated to another rank. Metatron was elevated to another rank. If you think the four angels I listed weren't powerful, then you are mistaken. Metatron could remove Crowley's angel warding even before he powered himself with the tablet, and then used white light to send Crowley to submission (The Great Escapist). That same angel managed to overpower Naomi (Sacrifice), the same powerful angel who could enforce her will on the seraph Castiel (much of Season 8). Again, these new information are from Season 8, which supersedes Season 4-5 canon. New angel breeds/classes/groups have featured, and sad as it may be, the old glorious Kripke era isnt the only basis anymore. It's like you did not even read my entire post and selected only those you could counter. I wasn't insisting your claim is an assumption. What I said was you were supporting one line with assumptions. There's a difference. FTWinchester (talk) 01:48, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
When a kid breaks a toy, and his dad fixes it and says "good as new" does that mean he changed the toy completely, or just fixed it to its original state? Exactly. And again, until they say otherwise, 3rd class means 3rd class, and we aren't going to assume that it is a metaphor. I never said there were only 3 types of angels. I acknowledged that they introduced more angels, but they just rank lower than cherubs. I did not pick out the points that I could counter, I already countered all those points, and don't need to do it again. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 02:01, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
- When a kid breaks a toy, and his dad fixes it and says "good as new" does that mean he changed the toy completely, or just fixed it to its original state?
I left out "improved" because I thought you were smart enough to figure it out on your own. The toy was improved, because it was fixed. It was broken, and now it isn't...it was improved. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 02:07, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
Except "good as new" isn't the same as "new and improved". Additionallly, your scenario could fit as "improved like it was new", but not "new" and at the same time "improved".
As for the third class, like I said, it is used not only to describe a 'lower' class, but actually is used in the context of three classes, where the third class is the absolute worst or lowest. This is evident in transportation like trains, ships, etc., in social sciences like first-world countries to third-world countries, and even in education (i.e., lowest degree in a British university). Now please take into consideration the context. This is what I have been telling you from the start. It is a relative term. In almost all the meanings you would see, it is almost always the least part in a set of three. To travel third class means you travel the cheapest (because there is no such thing as a "fourth class, fifth class accommodation"), to be in the third-world means you are part of the poorest (there is no "fourth-world"). When applied to angel classes, this would mean Cherubs are not literally the third most powerful class, but either a 'relatively lower class', or the 'actual lowest class'. Do you actually believe that the cherubs are more powerful than the Rit Ziens? Rit Ziens completely heal or completely kill their brethrens on the battlefield. Would you say they are the "fourth" or the "fifth" class, below angels that specialized in creating love for humans? The whole angelic race is viewed as a whole, and relatively, cherubs sit at the "third class", a.k.a., the lowest, not an absolute "third rank" with several more underneath them. FTWinchester (talk) 02:31, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
I get what you are saying. I had gotten it since the first time you have said it...but apparently you are not getting what I am saying....does 3rd class mean lowest on planes, ships,trains, yes they do, but we can't assume it means the same for angel. He says 3rd class, so that means the 3rd class of angel, until it says otherwise on the show. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 02:38, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
>Ignoring the origin, the context and the meaning of the phrase 'third class' in favor of a literal interpretation that isnt even used commonly
Sure. It's not like the series uses English or anything. In any case, I don't see you budging, nor would I. Unfortunately, because the status quo must be maintained until consensus is reached, your claims at most could possibly be added in a subsection 'Notes' outlining your main argument that "cherubs are (absolute) third class".
Again, Castiel referred to himself specifically as a seraph. Himself. Now again in the context of being "new and improved", this means he was not a seraph before, but was elevated to another rank, which is highly coherent with the new powers he has since displayed, and coherent with other beings described to have the same/similar rank/class. Going by the weight of ONE line, ONE claim, against several counter arguments that span seasons and eras that are also in agreement with each other, it's not a difficult choice to make. ONE angel calls himself a Seraph and everybody is generalized (or shoehorned, I should say) as such.
This is like saying all demons who were 'handpicked by Lucifer' and were among the 'first to fall' were all knights of hell when clearly, Lilith exists as a contradiction. FTWinchester (talk) 03:11, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
I actually have found a whole in the show that can make another scenario where there can be an angel class. Like you said, 3rd class could mean the lowest, but also, when Castiel said "technically it's a cherub, third class" isn't it possible that he meant that cherubs had multiple classes within itself, and Cupids were the 3rd class? Perhaps reapers and rit ziens are a type of cherub. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 00:05, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
Yes! Exactly, thank you. This is what I meant that the line was also open to interpretation. Another user, NaiflidG, brought up that exact same point of view yesterday in the talk page of the Angels. This would explain why the cherub we first saw appeared weaker than the one in Season 8 (Castiel, then a regular angel forced the Cherub to manifest but in Season 8, where Castiel was stronger, he was even unaware until the last moment on who the cherub could be). This is why we found it really hard to believe that Cherubs were the absolute third class among all angels. FTWinchester (talk) 01:54, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
(Fair warning ahead of time that the upcoming reply is not my best reasoned or worded argument.) It's certainly possible that that is the case; that Castiel was always a lower-class seraph and was simply "promoted" up a class or two by God. However, I still have trouble believing that.
First off, if Castiel were always a seraph, then that would have to mean that angels on his level or above him were also seraphs. Again, this is difficult to believe, if only because of the immense variance in terms of ability, power, and rank between Castiel and the angels on par with or above him. It also suggests two possibilities about Castiel and Uriel's fight in "On the Head of a Pin": either a regular angel like Uriel was able to easily overpower and almost kill a seraph, which is supremely unlikely, or else Uriel was a seraph, too. The latter would also mean that Anna was a seraph, possibly a higher-class seraph, since she was their boss. So many seraphs in one garrison would lead one to suspect that all the angels in the garrison would be seraphs; that it was in fact a garrison of low-class seraphs. That means that Balthazar, Rachel, Hester, Inias, Bartholomew, the four unnamed angels Uriel killed, the two unnamed angels and rest of the garrison Edgar killed, and Samandiriel -- all angels either confirmed or implied to have been in Castiel's garrison -- were also all seraphs. That is not only incredibly unlikely, it also makes seraphs as a whole much, much less impressive. But that is what you're suggesting when you say that Castiel could have been a low-class seraph.
Secondly, a class or two in difference does not explain the differences between Zachariah and Castiel and his garrison. Zachariah, a representative of upper-management, refers to Castiel's garrison as "grunts on the ground", not as comrades anywhere close to his level. He talks to archangels, works for them directly, and knows all their plans for the Apocalypse. Castiel doesn't even know where his orders are coming from. He takes orders from any angel above him, he is lied to, and initially he has no idea at all about the archangels's real intentions or the dissent within the ranks. Castiel is a grunt; Zachariah is not. Castiel is also an explicit representation of the Heavenly Host: like all the rest, he is kept in the dark, he is unimportant, he is one soldier among many.
Thirdly, I personally find it difficult to believe that being promoted to another class explains the world in difference we see in Castiel from how he started. When he started, he was overpowered by anyone and everyone: he couldn't smite Alastair, he was afraid of taking Anna on once she regained her grace, he couldn't defeat Uriel, he refrained from even confronting Samhain once the demon was summoned, and Zachariah looked down on him. When Castiel was cut off from Heaven at whatever rank he initially held, he lost power and turned human over the course of a year. He immediately lost the power to heal or resurrect people. Time travel knocked him unconscious for at least a day; returning to the present surprised him because he didn't think he'd make it. He couldn't even smite demons anymore. Compare this to the new and improved Castiel, who God intends to be "the new sheriff in town," who can heal and resurrect with a touch, who does the "impossible" task of breaking into Lucifer's cage on his own and escaping two pissed archangels unharmed with Sam's body, who can destroy a roomful of super-monsters without touching them, who fights a war in Heaven against an archangel and his army, who scares the King of Hell shitless even when he's been totally drained of power, who breaks free of millenia's worth of brainwashing and mind control, who effectively outfights and kills pretty much any opponent put in front of him. I just don't believe that that's a seraph moving up the ladder; I believe that that's a grunt made into a seraph.
Lastly, there is no indication at all that Castiel was a seraph before Season 6 and every indication that he was just a soldier then. Deciding that he was always a seraph -- just a lower-class one that was "promoted" when he came back "new and improved" -- would require us to question everything we have on angels. Are all the "normal" angels who've appeared seraphs? Or only certain ones? How do we know? Is this angel who overpowered seraph Castiel a higher-class seraph, then? Is this angel seraph Castiel killed also a seraph, then -- maybe lower-class, maybe higher-class but caught off-guard, maybe same class? We would have to re-examine each and every angel shown and argue whether or not they were seraphs as well. Not only would that be speculation, it is very time-consuming and difficult because we will argue and argue until the cows come home. And doing this all because maybe it's archangels as the first-class of angels, seraphs as second, cupids third, etc.? Because maybe Castiel and all the others were always low-class seraphs? That's not good enough for me. That doesn't convince me. If you manage to convince the others, then I'll go along with it because even though I've argued the opposite, I am open to the possibility of what you argue; I don't currently agree with it, but I can see why you would see it and I could accept it if you argue your case convincingly enough to change my mind and the minds of other users.--NaiflidG (talk) 23:58, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
Let us fix a time to catch up on the chat room. You live in California and I live in Hyderabad. There's 12 and a half hour time difference. I'm free today and unlike me, if you have the habit of switching on your lappy early in the morning, hit me up! I'll keep visiting this site for a few more hours. RaghavD'"Look into my eyes. It’s where my demons hide" 08:28, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Hi Josh. First of all, thanks for your work on the Wiki thus far :) While I think it's neat that you picked up on the angel class distinctions (though I'm not fully convinced myself), specific content contributions aren't exactly relevant to adminship. And though it's great that you're passionate about editing the Wiki, I'm not so sure you get what the role of a sysop actually entails. You are also a fairly new user; your contributions show that you have only become recently active within the past few weeks or so, hence a longer sustained period of editing would be preferable. Lastly, it's not exactly in good taste to leave your adminship request on *all* the bureaucrats' talk pages, especially since all of them are long inactive (barring myself), and it also demonstrates that you're not quite familiar with how a Wiki operates yet. For these reasons (and more), I'll not grant your adminship request at this time I'm afraid. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 14:42, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, in the future, kindly do not leave messages for me on other Wikis that I am active on. (Again, it's in rather bad taste.) Once, and on the correct Wiki, is quite enough. Calebchiam Talk 15:07, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough then. You misunderstand though, because adminship itself isn't about any of that. I suggest you ask other users in the community to get a better idea. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 01:34, June 11, 2014 (UTC)
Harming Death and his absolute indestructibility as a Horseman
If Castiel with all the souls of Purgatory and Leviathan could've harmed Death, then that makes him just another being, and loses his power, authority and title, and a worthless pile of shi*. To put it in perspective, if Jessie wore the other Horsemen's rings, absorbed every soul, absorbed every angel and demon, powered up with the angel tablet and wielded all of Heaven's weapons, he couldn't even kinda hurt Death. No matter how much power you have, if you're not God, you can't hurt him at all. Also, nothing, not even God or Jesse, could kill or destroy a Horseman without removing their attribute fully from existence. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:39 AM, August 22nd 2014
1. I know nothing can kill a horsemen without getting rid of their attribute. 2. To say nothing but God can harm Death is pure assumption.
"if the destiel user keeps spamming. I will either block them or relock the page." Thank you! I and other undid the edit a couple of times until I finally went to admin and he locked it and the castiel page. Thank you again!TheTardisAndTheImpala67 (talk) 06:34, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
Inferno (A Selena Original Series)P
Hello Fearless Diva, would you like to meet me in the chat so we may discuss this? EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 06:55, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Re: Power Scale
Question abut death sense you erased my edit? Um besides God who's more powerful? And it's one of the most powerful beings not being. And i know i'm being picky here but when did he hesitate on Cas I believe he called him out on the spot. And how is ring removal a weakness of his maybe the other horsemen but not him.Raybat (talk) 04:45, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
1. To say that no one besides God is more powerful than Death is an assumption. 2. As Castiel was confident he could at least harm death, we at least have to put it as a possibility. 3. The removal of his ring limited his powers to teleportation.
So let me get this straight Cas unbinding Death and then running like a little girl afterwards in your mind says hes on par with Death? Ok if you say so it's only a wiki lol. A soul empowered Cas vs Death sorry don't like his chances If you run from somebody and you all powerful at least stand your ground is all i'm saying.Raybat (talk) 20:25, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Just because Cas left after he unbound him doesn't mean he didn't stand any chance. The only reason Death was a threat to Cas was because he was bound by Sam and Dean. After Cas unbound Death, he was no longer a threat, so Cas no longer needed to fight him. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 23:34, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Hi there's Destiel spamming in the Dean Winchester page, Castiel page, and the Dean and Castiel Page. I reverted all of them. This is getting really annoying.
I noticed you took away the first blade away from the weaknesses specific to God. But I ask why because dean had the blade ready to kill metatron while metatron drawn upon the angel tablet making him god. So this indicates that god isn't omnipotent and can be killed by the blade cause even metatron was in fear of it. I just need your permission to change it back.
M. Warlow 23:42, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
Hey M. Warlow. The source of the angel tablet's power does come from God, and the first blade could kill Metatron while he had its power, but no, that doesn't mean it can kill God. The source of the first blades power is Lucifer, and unless you are suggesting that Lucifer can kill God, there is no way the first blade can either. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:03, September 17, 2014 (UTC)
The powers gained from the tablet didn't make Metatron God literally, to say otherwise is fallacious and fatuous. It made him like--or similar to--God. Even with Sam and Gadreel's comments, it was not impinged that he was God, but laconically called him such to give substance to it. If the tablet truly made him God: 1. He would've beat the angel bowler, 2. Gadreel wouldn't have needed to tarp over him to protect him from the blast, he could've just stood there taking no damage, 3. he could've just walked through the holy fire, 4. when Dean punched him, he wouldn't have staggered back. So, absolutely fuckin* not, the tablet didn't make him God. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:31 PM, September 16th 2014
oh, Thank you for your deletion of my page :D.
I searched for it, and got nothing but actual people with the surname matlock. I'm not sure if I'm just missing something or if the anon is messing with the page on purpose. Gabriel456 (talk) 02:36, September 21, 2014 (UTC)
Multiple Troll Report
Please ban "Süßigkeiten-Joviana" (and its corresponding IP), "Ulex911", "IvanKomarov91". All are vicious long–term cyberbullies here to subvert / retaliate against my previous efforts to bring them to justice for their numerous prior crimes against me. Moleman 9000 16:31, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
Before I can ban anybody, I need confirmation on the issue. Please refer me to where some of the cyberbulling has taken place, and if I see it fit, I will ban him.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any cyber-bullying going on. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 23:54, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
How are you man, Supernatural's starting back up again in six days! Hey, come meet me on chat. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:47 PM, October 1st 2014
Sorry, got really busy, I'm available now. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:50 PM, October 2nd 2014
Please do not drag other people into your own conflicts. 220.127.116.11 02:49, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
How could you not have seen what the trolls were doing on my talk page history? Again, I'm referring you to the edit history of my talk page, not just its current form. Moleman 9000 23:56, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
The edit summaries, visible on the history page itself, should speak for themselves: http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:ResonX?action=history Moleman 9000 00:25, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
Just let it go Moleman. These are innocent people just trying to maintain thier website, they don't want to be dragged into this drama. Just let it go, let it gooo. 18.104.22.168 04:41, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't u at least put possibly for first blade cause if he is channeling gods power, wouldn't this mean he is god?
M. Warlow 20:14, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
New layout images!
Hi EmpyreanSmoke, given that you're an admin I'm reaching out to you to let you know I've uploaded new images for this sites layout for the new season. :) I left them in the homepage talk section, but I'm reaching out to admins just incase they don't notice new stuff in the talk section of the homepage. Winchester7314 (talk) 10:52, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Knight of Hell
Is it ok to alter the infobox pic for Knight of Hell to include Abaddon, cain and Dean? I just think it might be better since they were the only knights shown (and in my opinion, better than simply Tara's notes about them). I won't though, if you disagree. I just thought it would be a good idea to do so Gabriel456 (talk) 00:37, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:20 PM, October 9th 2014
I realize it isn't my decision, but I kindly ask you to not answer questions directed to me, on my talk page, thank you ImperiexSeed. And Gabriel456, I think it's a great idea. :) EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:38, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
I guess Facebook stopped sending our messages to each other, but I'm still on, if you want to try again. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:54 PM, October 9th 2014
I didn't get any msges from you. Facebook must be screwy EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:24, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
I most certainly did send them, though! I just sent some more a few seconds ago but you were still asking if I was there. ugh -- ImperiexSeed, 11:27 PM, October 9th 2014
Reapers aren't angels. Unlike Cherubs which are just a type of angel with a role. Reapers work for Death. Crowley's state about Death's scythe killing Angels, demons, and reapers prove they are separate from Angels. If they were a type of angel, it would have been covered under the angel point of reference. Also, Eric Kriple the Supernatural Series maker didn't introduce the first Angel Castiel as the first official known angel until season 4. Gabriel was made into an Archangel later originally he was just a trickster, the writes it was a nice twist.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 04:33, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
Then that would make the male reaper in season 1 the first angel. Dean didn't think reapers then were Angels, and Eric Kriple the maker of the series didn't introduce Angels until season 4 as he wanted Castiel to be the first official Angel to be seen. [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 05:24, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
Normally, once someone in series states something, I go with that. But Dean's statement goes against how Angels weren't seen till season 4 official, and how reapers appeared before them in season 1 and 2. [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 05:45, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
Gabriel was shown in seasons 2 and 3, so the first angel didnt apear in season 4. It is true that they were officialy intoduced in season 4, but the first angel that appeared in the show was in season 1. As for your statement about Deaths scythe; Crowley is a demon, and isnt aware about everything in the celestial chain. He would have no reason to believe that reapers are angels, so he didnt know they were. Just because he didnt know it, doesnt mean it isnt true. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:07, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, man, is there a reason why you're ignoring me?! Let's work this out, whatever it is. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:33 PM, October 12th 2014
1. For future, please create a new section, as this has nothing to do with te topic of reapers 2. I left a message on your FB EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 20:45, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Very important, please respond!
Whatever's going on, I do deserve an explanation. It was really rude how you just left and still haven't responded to me, at least explaining what's going on. So, tell me, are you mad at me or what? -- ImperiexSeed, 8:18 PM, October 23rd 2014
22.214.171.124 is continuing to spam the Dean Winchester page and Castiel page with destiel. Just the heads up. I saw your warning in her page.
Hi, I'm new to this wiki, and don't reslly know how to work it. I see that you are an admin, and I was wondering if you could help me out when I have questions? Thanks :) LittleOl'Me (talk) 03:25, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
God and Death?
God is completely omnipotent, while Death is only nigh-omnipotent, so, while there are limits to Death's power, there really aren't any to God's. While Death was unable to, God could've: 1. "Hacked the Hell part" off Sam's soul, 2. snapped his fingers and restored Sam's soul instantaneously, and 3. God can't be bound or forcibly summoned, or chained by any type or form of magic. By the way, God could destroy and recreate the universe a hundred octillion times in a millisecond, or ash the universe to 80 quadrillion k, both of which I at least personally don't think even Death could do. Anyway, the only things God couldn't do are destroy Horsemen while their attributes still exist in the universe or make a triangle a oval. I asked the user to stop and, if they add it again, I'll block them for a bit. What are your thoughts? -- ImperiexSeed, 5:14 PM, November 1st 2014
I completely agree with you. God is obviously more power powerful than Death. There is NO possibility that Death is the most powerful, because if that were true, than how could his coffin be created? If the coffin can contain death, the person who made it has to be more powerful than Death. If he continues this, you or I should block him. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:19, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
If I see them add it again, I will block them for a few days, or if I can't get to it, you can. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:21 PM, November 1st 2014
Alright, sounds good. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:29, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
The only thing, that makes Death comparable to God is that Death as a concept in the Natural Order is like God's Omnipotence. Something that will last forever. But Death own personal powers, are enormous not Omnipotent. I think the best way to sum up this, is what Anna said in Season 5. The Horsemen go back to their day jobs, aka their concepts. And as God is credited as Omnibevelonent or all/perfectly good he wouldn't consider himself above the Natural Order or at least completely. So it is why I think Death stated at the end of creation he will reap God, even if God can exist Forever doesn't mean he would want to.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:41, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
@Twilight Despair 5: God created the Natural Order as Law and therefore is not subject to it, and neither apparently is Death at least to an extent. God can do literally anything that's logically possible, whereas Death's is shown to be limited. I'd say, while possibly God can let himself die, God's consciousness/mind is itself infrangible seeing as he resurrected himself from the grave after he died, and likely can just reform himself whole at any whim. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:16 PM, November 1st 2014
To each their own explanation of the divine. I'm simply stating as a possible theory, that God regardless if he follows the natural order or made it himself. He would keep himself bound by it at some degree as an all good being wouldn't consider itself above others. Consider it like this, that God's Omnipotent and Death as a Concept, they are like two people with guns at each other at a stand off. The first one to shoot one other win, until then they are at a stand off.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 02:38, November 2, 2014 (UTC) P.S. I think another evidence fact is if death was completely omnipotent is that, he would know how to not kill people, and to not it don't violate the natural order, as in Season 6 he said at times he wants his ring off.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 02:38, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
How you doing, man? Why do you think, confusingly, humans, such as Dean or Sam, can knock down locked doors with one kick but it takes forever for hellhounds to break through them?!!! Hellhounds should be able to shred a locked door to wood dust. Alright. Stay classy. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:32 PM, November 8th 2014
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think each time we have seen a hell hound try to get through a door, there has been salt or goofer dust around it. I think that's why they can't just barge through. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 20:51, November 8, 2014 (UTC)
Do you think you and I could be cool again, at least on the wiki, I'd like it if we could? Nope, in "Crossroad Blues," there were two instances where hellhounds had to work at breaking through locked doors and they weren't lined with salt or goofer dust. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:53 PM, November 8th 2014
Sorry, I was a little busy yesterday, and forgot about our convo. Yes, you and I can be cool on the wiki. And i guess it's just because of plot armor that they had trouble getting in. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 16:10, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I just unblocked it. Happy editing :) EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:26, November 12, 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :) I was thinking that instead of Rachel Platten for Lilith it should be Katie Cassidy since that was the final form for that season, therefore making her more so the big bad. I was also gonna add better quality images of a few other characters. Tysonjackson (talk) 02:29, November 12, 2014 (UTC)
Restoring the Chuck page.
I'm restoring the Chuck page until all the links to it are changed. You should never delete a page till its links are removed or changed. Now, I can take care of all this for you. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:49 PM, November 12th 2014
Don't worry, I'll fix it EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:53, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then frickin' fix it, and don't ever delete a page again till you've either removed or changed any links tying back to the page! But you should really know this as an admin. Chuck Shurley is still appearing red on pages, you need to remove the "[[ ]]" from his name on every page it's on. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:58 PM, November 12th 2014
You need to calm down, as there is absolutely nothing to get worked up about. And don't tell me what to do, you are not my mother. No, I don't have to get rid of the links. Instead, I added a redirect to Chuck's page, taking you to God's page. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:05, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you frickin' actually do, it's in the policies. Before deleting a page, it's the person's responsibilities to remove or change any links tying back to the page. So, yeah, get to it. http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Chuck_Shurley. Fun, fun. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:09 PM, November 12th 2014
Listen Imperiexseed, you are not the boss of the wiki, and don't get to tell everyone what to do. No, I don't have to delete the links, I only have to make it so they aren't dead. I put a redirect on chucks page, that leads to gods page. The links are active, and lead to Gods page. Problem solved, now stop bothering me. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:14, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
They were dead a few seconds ago, but aren't now for some reason, and it is their job to, before deleting a page, remove or change any links tying to the page. I wasn't treating you bossily, I was saying that it's in the policies. Your pathetic unfamiliarity with the policies shows that you shouldn't be an admin here. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:19 PM, November 12th 2014
If you would have waited more than 15 minutes before snapping at me, you would have known that I wasn't going to leave the links dead. I was going to (I did) put a redirect on chuck's page, so the links would still be active, but lead to Gods page. And you need to stop being so rude on my talk page! I am not "pathetically unfurmilair" with the policies, I just handled it a different way than you wanted. And don't talk to me about bad Adminship, you made a person leave the wiki by harassing him and saying hateful things to him! There are many more examples of why you aren't a good admin, but listing them would take up too much of my time. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:37, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, really? I'm an admin on multiple wikis and they love me. :) You're just cranky because the Wikia Staff didn't demote me. Anyway, audios. And you spelled "unfamiliar" wrong, man, you really need to take 3rd grade English again. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:42 PM, November 12th 2014
First off, it's only 3 wikias, so calm down. And obviously, they don't love you. When I put up a poll for your demotion, 40/42 people said they wanted you demoted. Obviously a majority of the wiki isn't happy with you as an admin. Second off, no I am not cranky because they didn't demote you; they simply said they couldn't accept it in poll form, so I have to set up a blog instead. BTW, that was autocorrect, not me. It was apples mistake, not mine. Last, you need to stop being SOO rude! You always are snappy, and insult people constantly (why you aren't a good admin). It is not becoming of an admin, or any user for that fact. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:52, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
"You did a poll, 40/42 said they wanted me demoted?" You just made that up. And, yes, I do have many friends all over wikia. And on the poll that was taken, more people said they wanted me to not be demoted. I don't think spell-check/auto-correct would change something into something that's not a word. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:57 PM, November 12th 2014
I didn't make anything up. I made a poll, and asked if they wanted you to remain an admin. 40/42 people said "no", they don't want you to be an admin. Maybe you should read more carefully next time. And just because you have some friends on the wiki doesn't make you a good admin. I bet hitler had friends, but he was still a terrible leader and person. (BTW, having friends on the wiki still doesn't change the fact that over 95% of the people that voted want you gone.) And I'm not sure why it auto corrects like that. Auto correct glitches all the time. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:06, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Then please link me to that poll that you did, because on the other poll, more people said I should stay. So, you're saying I'm like Hitler?!!!!! Really?!!!!! I'm not anything like that monster, and you know it; I'm a good guy but you annoy me, so I can get mean. But the people in my life think I'm a great guy. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:11 PM, November 12th 2014
Of course I'm not saying your like Hitler! He was a monster, and didn't deserve the painless death he got. I am just saying that having friends doesn't mean you are a good leader (or admin in your case.) Yes, you have good morals, but in general, you are very mean, and no, not just to me. And the first poll listed on the poll forum shows that 40/42 people want you to be demoted. If you were a good admin, you would give up your own administrator rights because it is in the wiki's best interest. Over 95% wants you to be demoted, so in respect for the wiki, and all its editors, you should give up your rights. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:19, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, cause I'm nothing like Hitler, he was a terrible person. Anyway, was "Fan Fiction" a good episode? I recorded it and skipped it to watch it later because I was hanging out with a friend at the time. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:24 PM, November 12th 2014
Of course you're not like him. He was a terrible person, and I just want to make sure you know I didn't mean that you are like him. I was just using him as an example. And yes, Fan Fiction was great! It is one of my top favorite episodes! EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:30, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Then, thank you! Ok, I'll be watching it tomorrow. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:33 PM, November 12th 2014
I don't mean to start things up again, but you seemed to ignore what I said about the Adminship. The poll shows that an average of over 95% of the wiki doesn't want you to be an admin. The right thing to do, in respect for the wiki and all of its users, is to remove your own rights. If it was just me who wanted this, I would leave you alone, but a large majority wants it as well, so, in respect for all the user's opinions, can you please remove your own rights, as that is what most of the wiki agreed upon? EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:53, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
In regards to how many people want or don't want me as an admin here, to clarify, we're just talking about this wiki, NOT all of wikia as a whole! I still don't know what poll you're talking about, but the particular one I'm referencing, more people said they'd like me to stay an admin. If I was truly a problem, it'd be handled and I'd be demoted; people would be repeatedly saying it all over if they wanted me to be demoted, but right now, it seems you're the only one complaining. It seems to me you just don't want to be on the same playing field. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:04 PM, November 12th 2014
You're right, we are only talking about this wikia, not all of them. The poll you are talking about was taken a long while ago, while the one I am talking about was just this last week. Here is the link to the poll archive http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Poll_Archive The one I am referring to is on the top of the page. As you can see on the poll, 41/43 people say that they don't want you as an admin, so you should respect the wishes of this wiki, and remove your own rights EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:09, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Even so, if I was truly a problem, it'd be handled and I'd be demoted, but Merrystar told us to work it out instead of just demoting me herself. Anyway, a ton of users appreciate the work I do here and on other wikis, and it seems to me you just don't want to be on the same playing field. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:15 PM, November 12th 2014
No no no no, you ignoring the facts. This has nothing to do with me not wanting to be on the same "playing field" as you. This is about you not being a good admin, and the wiki agreeing. Merrystar said to either work things out, or have the wiki take a vote. I gave a voting option to the wiki, and over 95% said that they didn't want you as an admin. Just because people aren't complaining 24/7 about you, that doesn't mean you aren't a problem. I gave this wiki the option to share their opinion, and 41/43 said they don't want you as an admin. That's that. You should respect the wishes of the community and give up your rights. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:22, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you realize that there's more than 100 users here? So even a 100% figure doesn't mean much when there's probably at least 1,000 users here. And, again, a ton of users appreciate the work I do here and on other wikis, and if I relinquish my rights, you'll be the only active admin here and I'm not gonna let that happen, as otherwise you'd be God over us all here. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:28 PM, November 12th 2014
Of course not all users are going to vote, but we have to base the percentage off those who DID vote. For example, if only 20 people voted for president, and 17 of those votes were for Obama, then Obama would still win. Not all of America voted, but they have to base the percentage on those who DID vote. So that means, we have an average of over 95% of the wiki that wants you demoted. You're right, it isn't the whole wiki, but it represents the wiki. May I remind you that YOU use to be the only active admin and YOU acted like you were the God of this wiki?! I'm not like you, Imperiexseed; I will treat all users as equal, and will be humble with my rights, unlike you. Btw, right now YOU are being petty and stubborn, because you don't want me to be on a higher playing field than you. By who DID vote, an average of over 95% of the wiki doesn't want you to be an admin anymore. This discussion is getting tedious when it shouldn't be. You are just stalling, becuase you know the average majority of the wiki wants you to be demoted. Can you please stop stalling, stop being selfish, respect the wishes of the community, and give up your rights? EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:40, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
Users continually keep adding the destiel paring to Castiel's page, please keep a sharp eye on it and ban them for like a few days if they keep adding it. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:34 PM, November 13th 2014
Can you also unprotect my user page so I can edit it? I locked it when I was an admin, but now that I'm not anymore, it won't let me edit it. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:39 PM, November 13th 2014
Much appreciated, and also, meet me on Facebook later if you can. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:44 PM, November 13th 2014
No problem. And if I have the chance later, I'll msg you. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:47, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
Hello EmpyreanSmoke, I would like to talk to you about something. I recently found out that "Atmokinesis" means Weather manipulation.If possible, can it be changed to Atmokinesis? In my opinion, it just sounds better, and I would like you to speak to other admins and discuss it.
Thanks in advance, and it is no problem if you decline it.
- Epicshawty (talk page) 23:57, November 15, 2014 (UTC)
You spelled the two words the same. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:00, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Empyrean, but I am horrible at understanding jokes, as English is my second language. I could not quite understand what you said there. - Epicshawty (talk page) 00:10, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not telling a joke, You said that we should change "Atmokinesis" to "Atmokinesis", yet you left the words exactly the same. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:17, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Empyrean. My mistake, I wanted to say to change "Weather manipulation" to "Atmokinesis". I would try to edit all the pages that has "Weather Manipulation" to Atmokinesis (if it is changed). - Epicshawty (talk page) 00:26, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, alright. Understood. I will get on that someone tonight :) EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:29, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Empyrean. - Epicshawty (talk page) 00:34, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
I know this is a free-for-all wiki and that you're an admin, but you could at least have talked to me first before changing the Retcon and Alias templates. I had to ask Calebchiam and consult all active users at the time before I could publish those info banner templates. Did you even ask the community which they preferred better? Because I actually had to create a discussion page before I could even make the changes. FTWinchester (talk) 15:53, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry FTWinchester, you're right, I should have consulted othes before changing this. I will make a blog post to see which ones people like better. If they like the new ones, I will leave it be, but if they like the old ones, I will change them back. Sorry again. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 16:09, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for considering. I'd just like to point out that I brought this up not just because the templates are my brainchildren, but because we have to follow certain procedures before making changes like this. If people vote for the new ones, then I'll be more than willing to accept the change. FTWinchester (talk) 16:12, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
Hello Empyrean. As you are the only admin active, I want to speak with you about something. I know that the REAL main page is protected. But the template using it is not. Template:Mainpage is vulnerable to any Wikia contributer. I think you should put the Mainpage template source code into the Main page itself, - Epicshawty (talk page) 00:47, November 17, 2014 (UTC)
When I was an admin, I deleted the 'alive' category, politely saying that it's unnecessary to have both an 'alive' category and, at the same time, a 'Deceased' category on the wiki; if a page doesn't have a 'Deceased' category, then they're alive. Can you ask people to stop adding the 'alive' to pages? Thanks. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:40 PM, November 17th 2014
Beings such as God and the four horsemen are neither alive or dead, they are merely "existent". With that as another category, there is use for alive category. Besides, it's not like it's doing anyone harm, or messing up the pages. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:08, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Dean%27s_Demon Can you please delete this page? When I created it I didn't realize there was already a page for it. Tysonjackson (talk) 00:10, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
If a character's not deceased, we don't put the 'Deceased' category and, therefore, they're alive. So, we don't need both an 'alive' category and a 'Deceased' category. Because the absence of one implies the other. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:15 PM, November 17th 2014
Alright, I'll get rid of the alive catagories a little later, and tell people to stop adding it. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:17, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:18 PM, November 17th 2014
Could Lucifer demolish the bunker?
In your opinion, could Lucifer completely disintegrate bunker, or could it actually keep even him out? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:19 PM, November 17th 2014
It is definately warded against Archangels as well. No, lucifer could not get in without the key, or destroy it. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:53, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
I don't wanna argue, so let's not, but I'm always wondering, why do you think archangels are weak?! -- ImperiexSeed, 12:12 AM, November 18th 2014
This doesn't have to do with the strength level of archangels, this has to do with the strength of the bunkers warding sigils. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 05:27, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
Chuck page being God
Hi there, I was just reading and saw that one of the wiki admins made it so the God page basically became merged with the Chuck Shurley page. They never actually confirmed this on the show, I thought the general idea for Chuck being God was a wait and see. I just wondered if it could be reverted to avoid confusion and what have you.Toko12 (talk) 05:02, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
Hey please do keep editing this page every week after each episode as it is on the main page, which is a high traffic page. http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Template%3AMainpage/Slider RaghavD'"Look into my eyes. It’s where my demons hide" 17:27, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
Hi EmpyreanSmoke. I am closing your bureaucrat request as unsuccessful and blocking you for 1 month for use of sockpuppet accounts to create the illusion of popular support on your request for bureaucrat tools (RfB).
Frankly, I am very disappointed. You have a solid number of useful contributions, have been a helpful presence in the community, and have gained the trust of a number of established users. It saddens me that you would stoop to using sockpuppet accounts in a bid to gain bureaucrat tools (which aren't worth debasing yourself for, really.)
For the rest of the community, I am laying out the evidence for Empyrean's use of sockpuppets to game the system:
EmpyreanSmoke's request for bureaucrat tools - read through this before reading the rest.
As other users have pointed out, it is somewhat disconcerting to find newbie users commenting on Empyrean's request for bureaucrat tools. Firstly, users who have just created their accounts are unlikely to be familiar with Wiki processes - users who are new to the community and do usually possess past experience from editing on other Wikis and would have had their accounts created ages ago. The above comment was in response to Epicshawty, but based on his comments and contributions, I doubt his is a sockpuppet account.
Instead, please take a look at the first two comments on Empyrean's RfB (all the way at the bottom of the blogpost.) Empyrean created the request on 01:27 17 November 2014. Inexplicably, 7 minutes later, the account SuperBossNatural7 posts his support, admitting that he doesn't know how Wikis work, yet for some odd reason he's so familiar with the Wiki that he is able to find the user blog page (which is not very accessible unless you frequently patrol the recent changes) and so familiar with admins/bureaucrats that he's posting on an RfB. Worst, he has done nothing on the Wiki since account creation for a solid 2 weeks, before making his very first contribution by posting on the RfB.
5 minutes after this, another new account posts on the RfB - clearly he is inexperienced and has a naive understanding of what bureaucratship entails. The account has a total of 10 contributions, 1 of which is a content contribution, and the other simply talk page messages to Empyrean himself and Imperiexseed. Two minutes after the account's first contribution, it leaves a message on Empyrean's talk page asking for help and guidance - which is fine, except a completely new user would hardly have cause to know who these users actually are. Empyrean's response can be found here.
It's obvious that something was a little off about all of this. More digging reveals that both accounts were created on the same day, within an hour of each other:
The evidence seemed pretty damning, so I looked for confirmation with Wikia staff:
And got a reply shortly after:
I think the conclusion is fairly obvious at this point. At this juncture, I would also like to note that I never approved Empyrean's sysop tools request in the first place. My response can be found here. Rather, Wikia staff MerryStar granted him the tools at the request of Imperiex - presumably on the grounds that Empyrean was a trustworthy user and that there were no active bureaucrats (though in actuality, no request was left on my talk page.) This effectively circumvented the need for a stringent check on his contributions, something I was fully aware of. Nevertheless, I gave him the benefit of the doubt because power to him, power to all of us if we get good, fair administrators that are passionate about the Wiki - we all stand to gain if he turned out to be trustworthy (and his contributions at the time seemed to indicate that much) so I let him keep the tools.
However, as I have noted on his RfB itself, he is once again circumventing a stringent check on his contributions by turning to Wikia staff. He has also claimed that I am inactive, despite other users correctly noting that I have been seemingly inactive for longer periods of time than that. It is only a matter of leaving a message on my talk page, which would be the straightforward thing to do.
Because of all of this, Empyrean, I quite sincerely doubt your intentions now. This whole RfB seems to be merely some sort of power grab. It was clearly premeditated, as your sockpuppet accounts were created nearly three weeks ago. Your leaving of messages for yourself is deceptive and was clearly meant to create the illusion that you have a better standing in the community than you actually do, and frankly it's quite chilling.
Finally, I logged on to Chat yesterday as per your request, and was confused to find this:
when just days ago you said the following., which I presume is why Imperiex willingly removed his own tools?
I'll leave it to the rest of the community to draw their own conclusions. On a parting note:
- Chat is not that great a place for discussions. It is good for on-the-fly collaboration, but as demonstrated above, it is also mildly discomforting because of the lack of transparency in what is being discussed.
- Adminship/Bureaucratship is not a big deal. I suspect this stems from the viewing of adminship as some sort of prize or trophy for your work on the Wiki. It is not. Ideally, you should not care about it. What adminship means is that you are trusted to have a few extra tools to help you better maintain the Wiki. Think of it as a mop being given to a janitor - it is not your beating stick nor your crown as some users seem to treat it. The tools have the power to damage the Wiki irreversibly - at least until Wikia staff or a bureaucrat steps in - and this is why I make the effort to consider each user carefully before granting them the tools - it is not for the sake of exclusivity. As most of you should know, I am very happy to give them to any established user who has consistently been a positive contributor to the project - as I say, power to you, power to all of us, right? So please have a larger, more mature perspective on this.
- I will be messaging MerryStar to ask her to exercise greater discretion in sysopping users in the future.
- Empyrean's sysop tools will be removed, and he will be given a month-long block for the use of sockpuppet accounts. Again, I am very disappointed. It is a loss to all of us, as well as yourself, in terms of credibility. I am tempted to ban you indefinitely because of the egregiousness of this offence and for wasting the community's time on this frivolity - but on account of your past contributions, I am limiting the block to a month. You will still be able to edit your talk page.
Hello Calebchiam, I do know this is not my business, however I saw this.
|“||As other users have pointed out, it is somewhat disconcerting to find newbie users commenting on Empyrean's request for bureaucrat tools. Firstly, users who have just created their accounts are unlikely to be familiar with Wiki processes - users who are new to the community and do usually possess past experience from editing on other Wikis and would have had their accounts created ages ago. The above comment was in response to Epicshawty, but based on his comments and contributions, I doubt his is a sockpuppet account.||”|
Thank you for believing that I'm not a sockpuppet account. However, I would like to confirm with you that I am fairly new to this wiki. I am fond of other wikias and I know how bureaucrat and sysop rights work. Once again, I thank you for believing I am not a sockpuppet account. If you saw my profile, you can see I have other favorite wikis, and if you check my Regular Show wikia edit, I made it over 1-2 years ago (i'm guessing, not sure of exact amount). - Epicshawty (talk page) 21:13, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
Woah woah woah WOAH! That is NOT what happened. I mean, I can see why you think that, but that isn't what happened. Please, allow me to explain myself.
1. A few weeks ago, on Haloween, my cousins were at my house, and we were watching Supernatural. I was checking out the wiki, and they saw. After showing them my account, and how the wiki was set up, they wanted to create an account, so I helped them set up accounts. (This was all at my house, so that's why we share the same IP address). One of my cousins (SuperBossNatural7) didn't really care about editing, he just liked reading the content on the pages (That's why he didn't have any edits).We didn't tell anybody we were cousins becuase we didn't feel it was anybody's business, as it didn't involve the wiki. My other cousin "LittleOl'Me" was actually going to edit a little, not just read. When I requested to be an bureaucrat, I told them how to get on the blog, and asked them to vote. I didn't created other accounts and vote for myself, as you claim I did.
2. The wiki considers a user inactive if they haven't edited in around 60 days. That is around the time you have stopped editing. I claimed you were inactive, becuase that's what the wiki staff said was inactive. Me requesting bureaucrat rights was not "a power grab" as you put it. I honestly care about this wiki, and want what is best for it.
3. What happened between me and ImperiexSeed had nothing to do with me wanting bureaucratic rights. A while ago, ImperiexSeed kept harassing me, and blaming me for "stalking his edits". I looked back at all the things like this that he has done, such as saying hateful things to MisterRandom2 until he left the wiki, insulting people, locking pages for biased reasons, etc. With all of those things he had done, I didn't think he should be an admin. I created a poll to see who agreed, and who disagreed. After a week, the poll showed that a mass majority agreed with me, so I explained to ImperiexSeed why he should get rid of his rights, and he did. A while after, I requested to be a bureacrat so I could promote new admins, as there were barely any active ones. While I was waiting for my request to be answered, I decided that as a bureaucrat, I could keep a closer eye on him, and give him another chance to be an admin. I messaged him and told him that if I get the rights, I would give him another chance.
I know all the evidence you found made it seem like I did that, but I'm actually a little hurt that you assumed, and said that about me. What you should have done is talked to me privately about it before you announced it to the enire wiki! Since you didn't, I didn't get a chance to say what REALLY happened, and everyone hates me for something I didn't do.
Sorry I had to go so into detail, but I had to address all the points you made. I request that you please unblock me and give me my rights back, as I didn't do what you think I did. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:33, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I am not in favour of taking chats offline. Wiki matters should be free and open for all to see - if I find evidence of sockpuppetry it is only fair that the rest of the community see it and come to their own conclusions. If what I say is false, tell it to the rest of the community (as you have done) and they will believe you if you seem to be telling the truth.
- Like I said, I am fully aware of Wikia's basic guidelines on inactivity. But of course, these are simple guidelines that make everyday matters of determining whether or not a user is active/inactive more straightforward - it saves time if we can generally agree that people who do not edit for 60 days are inactive. But the keyword is guidelines, common sense and on-site experience is still king. I've already elaborated on this quite a bit, I won't belabour the point further.
- I find the whole 'my-cousins-did-it' explanation highly unconvincing. That both accounts post just minutes after the blog post is up and consecutively at that is too coincidental for my liking. But even if we take it that your 'cousins' had a lot of time on their hands and were able to respond to your request promptly - things still don't add up. Why would they be asking you for help if you are sitting right next to them?
- Even if we grant that these are not your sockpuppet accounts but your cousins', getting them to vote for you without declaring any affiliation is gaming the system. If they had declared that they were your cousins or admitted of some relation, their votes would have been fine. The Wiki works on the good-faith assumption that it is one user, one account, and that we are all individually contributing to a discussion. Canvassing for votes secretly and getting these accounts to vote for you to create the illusion of popular support as though they were simply newbie users who unbiasedly saw your contributions and thought that you were trustworthy of bureaucrat tools is deceptive and an abuse of process even if the accounts do not belong to you. It is not the mark of a trustworthy administrator, and I will not be restoring your tools even if I believed your explanation (which I do not). If the rest of the community is willing to accept your explanation however, I will lower the block to 1-2 weeks but I will not remove it completely because what you have done is still an abuse of the good faith the Wiki is founded upon. Calebchiam Talk 02:43, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
1. When I asked them to vote on my blog, they were already at my house, so yeah, they did it quickly.
2. She (not he) asked me for help on the wikia rather than offline, becuase if I told her in real life, and she went on the wiki already knowing how to do these things, then she would seem like a "sock puppet", as you would say. Apparently that didn't really go as planned, becuase you thought she was one anyways!
3. I didn't ask them to go on my blog and vote for me, I asked them to go on my blog and vote. I never told them what to vote for, I just asked them to go on my blog, and take a vote. This doesn't count as "canvassing for votes sectretly", as I never told or asked them to vote for me.
4. I'm sorry you don't believe my explination, becuase it is true. If you don't believe me, there's really nothing I can do to prove myself. All I can do is tell you what I know to to be true, which I have. I only want the best for this wiki, and I would never stoop so low as to create "sock puppets". They truely are my cousins. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:53, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to the other members of the community to comment on this. Calebchiam Talk 07:06, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I too find it really hard to believe in so much coincidence. It looks like you just wanted to ascend the ranks of the WIki. I have no right to advice you, but just try to put this amount of dedication into your real life. After all that's what matters isn't it?RaghavD'"Look into my eyes. It’s where my demons hide" 12:38, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know what to say, because I have already told you the truth. I realize it's a bit of a coincidence, but it's what actually happened. No, your wrong RaghavD, I don't just want to "ascend the ranks of the wiki". I actually care about the wiki, and want to help it as much as possible. I AM putting that much effort into my real life, as the wiki IS my real life! I mean, of course I have a life separate from the wiki, but it is a big chunk of my life, as I care about it so much. By what you just said about "real life" you obviously don't care about the wiki as much as me. I would never stoop so low as to create "sock puppets". I care about the wiki too much to do that. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 14:51, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Even if we grant that these are not your sockpuppet accounts but your cousins', getting them to vote for you without declaring any affiliation is gaming the system. If they had declared that they were your cousins or admitted of some relation, their votes would have been fine. The Wiki works on the good-faith assumption that it is one user, one account, and that we are all individually contributing to a discussion. Canvassing for votes secretly and getting these accounts to vote for you to create the illusion of popular support as though they were simply newbie users who unbiasedly saw your contributions and thought that you were trustworthy of bureaucrat tools is deceptive and an abuse of process even if the accounts do not belong to you. It is not the mark of a trustworthy administrator, and I will not be restoring your tools even if I believed your explanation (which I do not). If the rest of the community is willing to accept your explanation however, I will lower the block to 1-2 weeks but I will not remove it completely because what you have done is still an abuse of the good faith the Wiki is founded upon. Calebchiam Talk 03:30, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
Mind unblocking me on FB, we were doing well, I thought? Not that necessarily we need to talk on there, but just mind unblocking me so, if we do need to talk, we can? -- ImperiexSeed, 8:54 PM, November 19th 2014
Can you meet me on FB? -- ImperiexSeed, 12:34 AM, November 25th 2014
Caleb, I am not trying to make anyone "fall" for anything, as I am telling the truth. Also, there is noting wrong with us not saying that we are cousins. If I became good friends with someone on this wiki, and he voted for me, he wouldn't have to say we were friends. It is the same with this situation. If I had told them to vote for me, then yes, they should have said we were related, but I didnt. I asked them to vote in general (not for me), so they shouldn't have to say we are cousins.
NaiflidG, I think your proposal is more than fair. I will text them and ask them to post something at the same time as me, to prove we are different people on different computers. But before this can happen, we will need Caleb to unblock us so we can all post things. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:52, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
After I agreed to prove my innocence to the wiki, I decided to wait a while, and give people a chance to respond. It's been a week and nobody has responded to my message. Someone suggested a way to prove my innocence to you, and when I agree to do it, everyone drops the subject and ignores it. Caleb thought I was using sockpuppets (they aren't, they are my cousins) and so he banned me and removed my admin tools. To prove to you I am innocent, I have agreed to have my cousins post something at the same time as me. Since we are all blocked, we can't post things, so we can't prove our innocence. FTWinchester, can you please unblock me and my cousins so that we can prove to the wiki that we are innocent? If you unblock us, we can all post things at the same time, and prove we are different people. Please, FTWinchester. I truly didn't do what I was accused of, and want to prove it to the wiki. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:22, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
I didn't offer any solutions, cause I couldn't find any.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 02:01, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure I could override Calebchiam's decision as of now. For one, I am still on probation as an administrator on delivering and lifting bans (I'm yet to receive feedback from Caleb himself about this topic since I made an erroneous call in blocking an anonymous user last week).
Another thing is, I don't think you guys posting at the same time would help much. Here's my suggestion on what you can do (if I do get the go signal to start lifting bans): IP addresses are shared according to your provider/router, and not by device. Even if you guys manage to post at the same time, if you all use the same server, then there isn't much help for your case. Additionally, it is also possible to write drafts in several tabs or browsers, then publish the drafts in a very rapid succession to make it seem they were posted at the same time. This is just a suggestion to help you clear your name to the more scrutinous members of the community (it's really hard to rebuild trust, and there seems to be a very long history of admin complaints in this wiki, so you have to understand why some members, especially the established and senior ones, are stringent on the matter). However, outside of posting photos of you and your cousins, I don't have much else to suggest. It would expose your actual selves to the internet, but it makes your case stronger that you are indeed not using several accounts just by yourself.
One last thing, it would appear that your other cousin managed to actually post on his talk page last week, and you even told him to refrain from using vulgar language. How about you three try posting on your respective talk pages for now? I'm sorry. I just don't think I'm supposed to be singlehandedly undoing a decision that has been consented to by several members; especially after my mishap with blocking that user from last week. We need to establish a surefire way of clearing your name, because, like I said, just posting at the same time won't be doing much. We would also need to talk to all of the users that has expressed disappointment to the event that happened. As Caleb said (which I found very much true), being an admin is a janitorial job. It doesn't give me the power to take things on my own accord alone. I still have to take the community's decision into account. FTWinchester (talk) 02:07, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
That rule is hard to uphold when a person has a cover of anonymity. A person using several accounts to make it seem there are several people active is not unheard of in the internet--in fact it's common. A post coming from any of the three user accounts declaring they are different people is hard to believe if they all share the same address. This is the problem. We do not have any way of verifying your message and intent. This is like a complete stranger telling you "Hi! I'm a good guy. I have no bad criminal background. Let's be friends."
- "there is no evidence that my explanation was false"
There is also no evidence that your explanation is true. I told you. This is a community decision. I cannot take things on my own just because I am an admin (amd a really new one at that). I'm pretty sure you know how this works considering you went through all that trouble to prove to Imperiex that he is not liked as an admin (but that's another story). If you could find the established users that expressed disappointment at the event, and convince them otherwise, then I will lift your ban. FTWinchester (talk) 12:28, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think my blog is the proper medium to do this. Have you tried posting your expounded point in the blog post you made about your beaurocracy? FTWinchester (talk) 02:41, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
It was already posted in the blog a few days ago. RaghavD also has expressed support. I'm leaving a message on Caleb's wall so we could hear his opinion on the current prevailing opinion. FTWinchester (talk) 13:37, December 7, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, and welcome back
Hey, welcome back, man! Castiel seems to be able to hear anything on Earth unless it's sigil-warded, so it can be included on the wiki. Also, after you respond here, meet me on Facebook if you have the time. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:35 PM, December 8th 2014
You're welcome. The demonstrability of this is hard in that it has no showiness and hasn't been confirmed outright, so, as a statement, it may seem groundless, but it is empirical and it seems that unless it's sigil-warded, Castiel can hear every sound on Earth. Alright, have a good one. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:55 PM, December 8th 2014
Dude (and maybe you can help)
The person who left that message on my wall which you questioned the deletion of is a sockpuppet of the vicious cyberbully Willow Giovanna, who has been actively harassing me, Gabriel James Navarro, for more than two whole years now in direct collaboration with other vicious cyberbullies. Her crimes include mass-hate art, attack videos, slander, repeat-ban-evading mass-vandalism, false incrimination, intellectual property theft, accusations of the opposite being the case in regard to said theft, impersonation, forgery, illegal recordings of my voice obtained through repeated spam calls made to my private number, manipulative abuse of false identities, ban-evasion on dozens of sites for the express purpose of continuing to harass me, and lying to authorities when called to answer for her actions. The message in question was left following a mass-vandalism raid led my her under the same account on my personal wiki site.
One of the other predominant users on this very site who you may know, General MGD, who runs a site documenting real-life villains for both encyclopedic and archival purposes and for the pursuit of justice against those still at large, has repeatedly denied me documentation of these monsters on said site due to their own unlawful, threatening pressure against both him and me including mass-proliferation of outright lies to the end of casting doubt on my entirely true "claims".
I had previously been willing to try and let this go, but due to this recent re-provocation and your unexpected involvement, I would like to ask that you, as another major user of this site, try to talk some sense into General MGD over his cowardly, bullying-conceding attitude.
Edits and Undoing Edits on Talk pages
If you could please explain what is going on with the constant editing and undoing of edits among you and a few users like Gentle-Willowtree, that would be much appreciated. FTWinchester (talk) 22:06, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
This is ResonX. Gentle-Willowtree is a sockpuppet of the vicious, slanderous, lying, sociopathic, sadistic cyberbully Willow Giovanna who has been actively, viciously harassing me on every site I use for more than two years in collaboration with other bullies, and I provided ample proof of that here. I am extremely offended by your claim that you saw "no evidence" of her bullying, even when I showed the most recent hate art she vandalized my site with. BennyCupster (talk) 16:15, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just an observer, but Moleman has apparently reverted one of your edits to a Talk Page, which he is not allowed to do. Is there anyway you can get him into chat to discuss this? http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:BennyCupster?diff=next&oldid=135482 Scombridae (talk) 03:49, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
Sam being "cured"
Hey, I'd just like to point out that you said Sam got cured when God put him on the plane, but you shouldn't forget about My Bloody Valentine or when Sam had to drink all the demon blood for Lucifer to be able to contain him in Swan Song. And not to forget about The Great Escapist, when Sam said that the Trials were "curing" his demon side. Not sure where you heard Robert saying that, because otherwise, the fact isn't true as Sam never completed the Trials so that just sounds like a rumor. Gourgeist (talk) 01:07, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't a rumor, I saw the video where Robert said that. He must have been fired after he was brought back from Hell or something, or maybe doings the trials purified him. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:44, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
Don't EVER, and I mean EVER, talk to me again
Please, DON'T EVER talk to me again. Let me live my life, and I'll let you live yours. This will be left at that, but please, don't EVER, and I mean EVER, talk to me again for any reason. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:28 AM, January 24th 2015
No. This is a public wiki, and I will tak to whoever I wish. Just because your all pissed because I told the truth, doesn't mean I am going to stop leaving messages on your talk page, posting in your blogs, etc. So again, your request is moot. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:10, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Then, if we do talk, let's at least talk with civility, respectfulness, and without judgement, ok? Meet me on Facebook when you can, we need to talk. I really have something to say to you, hear me out. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:57 PM, January 24th 2015
Actually, "generaly" is not a word in the English language. Additionally, the rest of the sentence you changed, which it looks like someone else had fixed the other day, wasn't really accurate, as it stated that since red-eyed demons could teleport, they were stationed as crossroad demons. There isn't anything to support this as the reason, and wording it like that can be confusing or mislead some readers. Trip391 (talk) 21:55, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
We know that Guthrie was promoted from being a crossroad demon, so that means hat crossroads demons arent a class, but a job. Rowena wanted Guthrie because she knew he used to be a crossroad demon, which meant he could teleport. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 23:33, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
- Look at the corrections again. Not everything had to do with your edit, EmpyreanSmoke, and there was no reason to undo them. It would be appreciated if you could look back over the corrections, and add them back in, since you needlessly just reverted everything to make your point. Trip391 (talk) 23:51, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
I undid it, because it made it sound like crossroad demons are a species of demons, when they aren't. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 23:53, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm re-adding all the formatting changes I did back in. I'd recommend not needlessly reverting again without actually reading the edits, as nothing I've changed has anything to do with your sentence. And just to re-emphasize, you should always read through an edit before simply reverting, because while you may feel slighted when part of your sentence gets changed, there may have actually been a lot more changes involved in the edit. Also, I think removing all mentions of Crowley may be something you should bring up on the talk page; I'm re-adding that in because I should not have to sort through my earlier corrections (with your new ones) that you unfairly reverted. Thanks in advance for being considerate to someone who doesn't always edit here. Trip391 (talk) 00:06, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
1. I did read the whole edit, and you changes all of the sentence, not just part of it.
2. I didn't unfairly remove your edit. Your edit was just undoing my own edit.
3. Removing Crowley's name from the apearences isn't big enough to be a community descion. If the community does have a problem with it, they can express that, but you don't have to inform the community every time you edit. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:24, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
I re-looked at your edit, and saw that you did more than just undo my own edit. Sorry about the mix up. I should have just changed the sentence back rather than undo the entire edit. 126.96.36.199 00:27, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, however there was more than just one incorrectly spelled word. I'm redoing my valid changes from before, and they don't interfere with that sentence you changed, but I am also going to leave the Crowley appearances in (it's much easier to re-add his appearances than to go through and find all the changes I made and fix them in the Crowley-less appearances article). I won't argue if you remove his appearances again (but not my valid changes), but I do think it might be best to discuss it on the talk page first. Trip391 (talk) 01:16, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Would you like my opinion on this, EmpyreanSmoke? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:40 PM, February 1st 2015
Sure EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:45, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you, at least with the way it was worded in the episode, being a Crossroads demon seems to be a position not a subspecies of demon. However, how would you explain the red eyes, Crowley displayed red eyes (a Crossroads demon trait) in "What's Up, Tiger Mommy?" but was the King of Hell? Thanks for hearing me out. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:51 PM, February 1st 2015
It would appear that since Crowley is no longer a Crossroad demon, but is the king of hell, and has red eyes, that red eyes is simply a seperate class of demon, that are usually tasked as crossroad demons. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:06, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Re: Soul Splitting
Sure, I'll stop. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:40 PM, February 6th 2015
You're welcome. Hey, what did you personally think of "About a Boy," did you like it? -- ImperiexSeed, 9:23 PM, February 6th 2015
Yeah, I remember you telling me that you've wanted them to make an episode out of this, and now, when they finally did, they totally botched it. Castiel said that the mark was interlaced with Dean on more than just a physical level, and so a hex that affected him on purely a physical level shouldn't have removed the mark. I mean, should that have actually been able to work, Cas could've touched Dean and did the same thing and kept him that way till they found a way to remove it. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:32 PM, February 6th 2015
No I'm afraid I don't have it, but I did see it and they confirmed it wasn't hell (explaining how Rowena's there and why the demons need vessels, and how he can get cellphone reception) believe me I thought it was hell as well, I was in a discusion with another fan over it until they gave me the link. I don't have it still though. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:45, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
How can Cain have a beard
How can Cain have a beard? I thought such things for an occupied vessel (peeing, pooping, coughing, burping, sneezing, farting, etc) is quashed, or disallowed. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:13 PM, February 10th 2015
Vessels occupying demons have always been able to grow hair/beards. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:22, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
It's quite clear that occupied vessels shouldn't be able to pee, poop, burp, hiccup, sneeze, etc because angels and demons don't need to pee or get hot or cold, so why would they be constrained by the other lapses of imperfections in the body? I was quite confused to see Castiel with a beard in Purgatory with him still having his abilities. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:36 PM, February 10th 2015
In seasons 5-6, Crowley was clean cut, but was sprouting a beard in season 7. Demons have always been able to grow hair from their vessels. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:01, February 12, 2015 (UTC)
Re:Cas vs. Cain
Cas' attacks that rely on the energy that comprises his true form should do nothing to Cain, seeing as his smiting didn't affect Alastair, a demon weaker than Cain. And especially seeing as how Cas' currently a weakened regular angel, he shouldn't be able to touch Cain noticeably. As a seraphic being, however, he'd be able to fatally wound Cain. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:01 AM, February 17th 2015
As I've already shown, a Seraphim is a regular angel, and their is nothing to suggest that there is a seperate "common angel" class. At his full power, Cas would not be about to fatally wound Cain. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 05:47, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
No, man, you've yet to convince even one person on the wiki of this. There's no way that Zachariah was the same type of angel as, for example, Inias or Malachi. So, what, do you think that Cas at full power can do nothing and can only kill demons of lowliness like black-eyed demons?! -- ImperiexSeed, 1:14 AM, February 17th 2015
All black-eyed demons are e same level demon, yet the power level between each demon varies. It is the same for angels; they are all the same class of Angel, but they all have different power levels. Zachariah was a high ranking Seraph, more powerful than Inias and Malachi. Castiel was not promoted to a new class of Angel, so he still wouldn't be able to smite white eyed demons. Please, present to me the evidence that Seraphim are a different class of Angel than "normal" angels. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 06:42, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
The Executioner's Song, the mark of Cain, and Sam
Hey. I'd first off like to ask, man, how did you like The Executioner's Song? Awesome, bad, so-so, or terrible? Also, I have somewhat of a theory on how Team Free Will will maybe be able to remove the mark, but it has no real solidification at this point: Sam. I think true recognition on Dean's part about how Sam loves him will make it actually disappear off his arm. Cain killing Abel (the very mirroring of the strong familiality between Dean and Sam) may be the reason why it's now impossible for him to remove the mark, because Abel's love for Cain was the only thing that could remove the mark, just as Sam's the only thing that can remove the mark from Dean. Thoughts? -- ImperiexSeed, 8:18 PM, February 18th 2015
I honestly loved that episode! It was one of the bests ones they had in a while. The only thing I didn't like was them not putting in the light effect when Cain died (although Robbie Thompson tweeted that he didn't die). I think that the mark will need a physical cure, and that nothing Dean feels or know will cure it. While I don't believe yor theory is going to happen, it's a good theory, and is a possibility. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 01:24, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
I loved it too, and it was one of the best ones in a while! They, the writers, may boringly slump in fixing the mark with lameness, like a physical solution, or at least that's how I personally feel, depending on how/what is involved in the removal of it. But, still, my theory might not be used. If you're talking about physically removing it, God, Death, Lucifer and maybe Metatron, being the scribe of God, would be the only ones that could remove it. My way would be quite awesome, and thank you for your kind words about my theory. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:40 PM, February 18th 2015
If your reason to set up a poll is to settle a dispute on the angel ranks/classes, I'm afraid I'd have to say no, not because I disagree with you but because it has been said multiple times in the past that the wiki must not settle disputes nor create consensus via polls by a majority vote. If however, you have another reason for creating a poll, then I will unlock it for you. Also please don't forget to sign your messages on talk pages. Thank you. FTWinchester (talk) 12:49, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
I'd really like to know, why in the Hell do you like Sam so much, and why at all? He got beat by even a blind demon in "Lazarus Rising," which is laughably sad. He's the Jigglypuff of the Winchester brothers. hehe -- ImperiexSeed, 4:22 AM, March 11th 2015
No, not Samhain, I was talking about the blind low-level waitress demon. Anyway, how's life treating you, man? I hope you're doing well. As for how I'm doing, I got a job and have been wicked busy for a long time now, and that's the truth. I'm really enjoying my life. Once again, I hope you're doing well. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:25 PM, March 11th 2015
Seraphs and high-tier demons
I'm extremely aggravated that for some bizarrely baffling reason you think that seraphic beings are much weaker than high-tier demons, like Azazel, Cain or Lilith. Do you really think that seraphs are toddlers in terms of power compared to high-tier demons?!! How would you stat seraphs in comparison to other beings? -- ImperiexSeed, 7:17 PM, March 17th 2015
Dean's da man! :P
Just to point out, in "The Things They Carried," when the Khan Worm was scrambling around on the floor, Sam swiped at it a couple times and missed EACH TIME but then, in one try on two occasions, Dean just steps on it, killing it. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:09 PM, March 19th 2015
Ok...not really a big deal. You can't base somebody sucking on them not being able to take down a monster while the other can. Sam with a broken arm killed the two werewolves when Dean with the mark was beaten down by them. 00:01, April 1, 2015 (UTC)
Hey, man. Haven't heard from you in a while, how are you? I'm doing awesome, like I said before, I have a full-time job which I've had for a while now, and I've been so swamped I haven't had time to think. I wasn't able to watch last night's episode, how was it, without ruining anything? -- ImperiexSeed, 4:17 PM, March 26th 2015
First of all, please don't spam people's message boards, as CalebChiam said, it's really very annoying. I think it would be best if we didn't discuss our private lives with eachother anymore, due to the things you did before. Hope you understand. I didn't particularly like the latest episode. Parts of it were good, but the whole ghost/Rowena storyline was kind of bla. This weeks episode looks great though! EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 23:59, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but can we just talk on Facebook for a little bit? That's all I ask, just a few minutes so we can talk about how we've been. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:17 PM, March 31st 2015
Again, I don't think we should talk about our private lives with eachother. But sure, we can talk on Facebook for a little bit. I'm trying to unblock you so we can talk, but I can't find your profile for some reason.EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:25, April 1, 2015 (UTC) All I wanted to tell you is I've had a full-time job for a while now and am really enjoying my life! But I can refrain from sharing any more of my personal life from now on, with all that's happened. Just wanted to let you know I'm doing really well. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:42 PM, March 31st 2015
Why do you like Sam?
Why in the fuc*ing Hell do you like Sam, I really wanna know, I mean I would find it very embarrassing to like Sam? Sam's always getting beat up and Dean swoops in, saves him, and the ladies pretty much line up and are all over Dean. Dean's good with kids ("Dead In The Water," "Swap Meat," "Adventures in Babysitting," etc) the ladies, he's smart, funny, classy, a frighteningly good fighter, and has an awesome car. You say that Sam's strong, brave, smart, which, humorously, have all been attributed to Dean by characters at one point or another, but never to Sam. The writers have given Dean every possible cool trait, and Sam's just his shadow. Characters 1-10 hardly pay any attention to him, and everyone's uproariously praising Dean in comparison. Sam's just his tag along, that's all he's been and that's all he'll ever be. To be quite honest, Sam Winchester is the worst character ever created in fiction, and I'm NOT at all exaggerating; I can't think of a worse character in fiction than Sam Winchester. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:53 PM, April 26th 2015
You have asked me this a million times, and I have already answered this a million times. "You say that Sam's strong, brave, smart, which, humorously, have all been attributed to Dean by characters at one point or another, but never to Sam." Ummmmm...no. Do you even watch this show at all? Sam is strong (look at him shirtless in Hell House, Heart, Mystery Spot, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Sex and Violence, Free to Be You and Me, The Third Man, Clap Your Hands if You Believe, or Torn and Frayed. Sam is completely ripped!), brave (he fricken attempted to overcome Lucifer himself to save the world, and was ready to die in order to close Hell), and smart (this one is totaly obvios. everyone who watches the show knows hes the smart one). You say that they give these characteristics to Dean, not Sam, which is total BS. Dean is not smart. Im sorry, he just isnt smart. He was made as the dumber one. He is also very selfish; Sam was right in the Purge, when he said that Dean does the things he does for himself, becuase he doesnt want to be alone and such. This is the last time I will be adressing this, so stop bringing me into this topic. Im done. If you add any more of this crap onto the articles or my talk page I will contact one of the admins. Good day. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:12, April 27, 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing, meet you there! Do you still have my FB info? -- ImperiexSeed, 5:01 PM, May 1st 2015
I hadn't had you blocked, and it still won't let me message you. My account name's Ray Anderson with a black and white picture of Dean looking to the side. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:13 PM, May 1st 2015
Re. Admin Rights.
Hmm, I won't say no as that would be bias. BUT, as with what happened back then. Before you or someone makes an official page. Maybe you show ask ALL the admins, if you have waited long enough before asking for admin rights again. As you need enough approval from all users when you ask for the rights, on the official Admin Request Pages, I don't want you going through all the work and not get it and then have to wait longer than you should.
I can't give you direct approval until then, however you can tell them I am not against you regaining them. But as regardless if it was or WASN'T your fault losing the admin rights. It did cause some conflicts here. So you might need to jump through some hoops, before you can get the rights back.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:43, May 3, 2015 (UTC)
I'M SOOOO VERY SORRY
I AM SORRY!!!
I AM SOOOOOOO VERY, VERY SORRY. I HAVE GONE WAY, WAY, WAY TOO FAR. Of course, I DON'T want Jared dead. I hope he feels better. I will STOP with all of this hateful talk even if I don't like his character. Again, I'M SOOOOOOO VERY SORRY TO ALL, AND MOST OF ALL, TO JARED! I WILL STOP. Please unblock me and meet me on Facebook, I need to tell you something regarding all this-- ImperiexSeed, 8:20 PM, May 17th 2015
I don't mind you becoming an admin again, but this is provided you don't do one thing. You don't start undoing every edit I make like you did before, to the point where I nearly left this wiki because you weren't letting me edit anything without reverting it. I don't know if you knew that, but you almost drove me so insane, I almost left the wiki altogether. Because we're friends again, I'd hope you wouldn't put me through this crap again. If you don't do this again to me, I'd absolutely support you becoming an admin again. If you regain your admin rights and do this again to me, I'll never talk to you again and will bring some others admins in on it. I love being your friend again, but if you hawk my every move on this wiki, I will not be your friend anymore. Aside from that, I don't mind you becoming an admin again. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:50 PM, May 23rd 2015
Re: Another chance?
Hey, Empyrean. Thank you for contacting me, but I think I should abstain from this vote, as I've become extremely inactive on the wikia and have missed most everything that's happened here for the past months, including any and all of your input on the wikia. Me voting for or against you getting your rights back would be not be based on your actual behavior since losing your rights, which goes against the point of the vote. I hope other users will weigh in soon and resolve this.NaiflidG (talk) 02:56, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
S10 Big Bad
Hey, I replied to your message on my wall :) But I have a question: Who was S10's Big Bad? I just started to watch the show again and I'm on S5 so idk about the S10 one. But from what I've read online i'd say Rowena and Mark/Dean, but I wanted other opinions before fixing the page. Tysonjackson (talk) 04:18, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
Hi EmpyreanSmoke, the idea behind a community discussion before granting admin rights is to get a sense of what the community thinks about the quality of the candidate in terms of competency, trustworthiness, et cetera. Consensus is not the same as democracy where one counts the number of votes on either side and then goes with the majority - rather, it requires careful evaluation of the arguments put forth by each user in order to understand what their specific concerns and hesitations are. I point this out because you don't seem to understand this given your vote-counting and tallying of '75%', which is simplistic and irrelevant.
Now, I've scrawled through the user blog you created and the messages left on your talk page.
- "4.5 don't mind me having the rights returned, and 1.5 do mind me getting them back. (The .5 on each is because FWTinchester is sort of in between.). This shows that 75% of the established users agree to my rights being returned. "
This is a rather bold misrepresentation of the state of affairs. At worst, you're being very devious, and at best, you're rather poor in your thinking. Not that I agree with your simplistic quantifying of users' arguments, but even if we use these numbers, it should be obvious that 'not minding you having the rights' is vastly different from 'supporting you having the rights'. Neutrality is not consent. The idea that the ambivalence and neutrality of several users is equivalent to 75% of users agreeing to your rights being returned is grossly incorrect.
Furthermore, you'll notice that no one other than Tysonjackson has given you their full support (though this was strange since he stated you were a great admin, as if nothing had ever happened). Everyone else is either ambivalent, opposed, or weakly supporting with qualifications. As you've noted:
- FTWinchester is ambivalent, and he is for having admins because the site needs it (this I do agree), but he's not comfortable with you having those rights (only rollback).
- RaghavD is fully opposed to you having these rights.
- Imperiex hasn't given you unqualified support either - his exact phrasing is "I don't mind you having these rights", but to be fair, it's quite obvious from the context that he means he is supportive of your nomination. But his support is problematic all the same because he is giving it on the condition that you will not interfere with his edits. You have not responded to the condition he has laid out. In any case, if you do become an admin and Imperiex's edits are questionable, you will be forced to confront him. How well you can handle this is up for debate, but I haven't seen your reply to Imperiex's request nor is there any indication that you will be able to handle the conflict any differently from before, should it arise again. Imperiex's support seems to be less about the quality of you as a candidate (he hasn't mentioned anything about why you would make a good admin despite your past issues) than the nature of the relationship between you and him.
- Gabriel456's exact words were "I'm "meh" about this." This is full-on neutrality.
- TD5 has given his support with reservations.
The most apt word to the describe the community's response is mixed and wary. I'm not seeing a clear consensus for either side, so I'll have to close this adminship request as no consensus. Personally, I am not impressed by the quality of your responses or your behaviour. To put it bluntly, I think you are young and have a lot of maturation to do, and I would not trust your judgment on Wiki matters. It seems to me that you have a way to go before you are able to make sensible, thoughtful and reasoned decisions. That being said, I have granted you rollback rights, in line with FTWinchester's thinking. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 11:45, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, a quick response to your points:
- I don't think you can explain Tysonjackson's comment on his behalf given that he hasn't stated anything to that degree. This is speculative unless there's a message you're referring to that I'm unaware of.
- I took TD5's response as support with reservations only because of the qualifier statement in his last comment, which is practically the definition of a reservation. It's a statement of fact and if you want to quibble with semantics here, I can only shrug.
- Thanks for letting me know. It would be great if on-wiki issues were discussed and kept on wiki talk pages, fyi.
- This is a silly and trivial line of reasoning; as RaghavD might put it, you're twisting his words. This is neutrality, plain and simple. Notice that one can just as easily say that Gabriel456 is perfectly comfortable with you not getting admin rights.
- Maybe you should read Supernatural Wiki:Consensus. What you're saying is true, but only in a very simplistic sense. Consensus is much more than that - hopefully you'll glean this from reading the policy article.
- I appreciate you letting me know your concerns. Do let me know if you have any other queries.Cheers, Calebchiam Talk 11:43, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that I do think you're on the right track, and should you continue to improve your judgment and maturity, there's a fair chance that the community would be much more supportive of your future request for adminship, if any. Calebchiam Talk 11:47, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
Meet me on FB please
Meet me on FB please, because, while I don't think this friendship should continue, I would like it to end on good terms, man, because despite everything's that ever happened between us, I do care about you and wish you the very best. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:23 PM, May 31st 2015
Agnes and Agnes
We understand what you mean about Agnes, but until we can be 100 percent sure, we should not state that Sister Agnes from season 9 is the same Agnes who created the Book of the Damned. They both have the same names and are both nuns doing dark things, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are both the same woman. In the edit summary I also mentioned that Saint Agnes was a common name among Christian women, as Saint Agnes was one of the only woman to be sainted, and parents also hoped their daughters value the same virtues as her. Until we know for certain that these two are one and the same, I moved the season 9 Agnes to Agnes (Abaddon), and the information you added for the creator of the Book of the Damned to Agnes (Book of the Damned). If they happen to be confirmed to be the same by someone involved with Supernatural, we can simply redirect the second Agnes to Agnes, and move the season 9 page back. Trip391 (talk) 20:41, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
Meet me on Facebook. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:03 PM, June 27th 2015
Why do only old grandmas want Sam? ahahaha :P
Do you also find it amusing that Sam is an 'old-granny' magnet? Gertrude Case in Red Sky at Morning, Crystal in Swap Meat, and the old women in Ask Jeeves. This is very funny! lmfao -- ImperiexSeed, 8:05 PM, July 8th 2015
So, what did you think of season ten's finale? Are you looking forward to the Darkness? I really think she's gonna be awesome! -- ImperiexSeed, 8:55 PM, July 13th 2015
Yeah, I changed my mind. The Darkness character has changed my mind, to be honest. She sounds very interesting, and I can't wait to see what her character's gonna be like. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:05 PM, July 13th 2015
- You there?? -- ImperiexSeed, 9:13 PM, July 13th 2015
Inconsistency with grace
Why did Anna when she stripped herself of her grace still retain super strength, telekinesis, and supernatural perception, but when Castiel lost his, he was completely human? -- ImperiexSeed, 3:05 AM, July 14th 2015
How are you?
Hey, man. What you been up to? -- ImperiexSeed, 5:41 PM, July 15th 2015
Send me links, of recent edits of bias in official articles than I will ask the other admins. Also send me prove souls can be destroyed. Cause in every know time I remember it only bends Death's statement of that souls cannot be broken, I have never seen a soul (not counting altered souls like demons) destroyed conpletely.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 21:50, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
Send me the link to Mary I don't remember that one. As for season 7 I figured you would bring it up. Hear is my argument Season 6, souls are pure energy and some of it can be siphoned off. (Even if something is beyond the laws of physics it still might be affected by them in someway.) The ghost did that but to the point he absorbed them in their entirety. He may have destroyed their consciousness but their (spiritual bodies) were incorporated into his own spirit. Maybe nigh-indestructibility as even in those cases they didn't completely erase them from creation. And with the key of oz, even if the parts are separate they still had a supernatural connection that affected each other. And I think that is what Death meant, that the soul can't be 100% destroyed or separated where no connection remains between the parts.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:09, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I'll read the pages you linked but can you put them in my blog as a comment for the other admins, please? [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:09, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
We have seen that ghost destroyed are sent to one of the spiritual realms. But in season 6 Crowley and Samuel said she could be brought back. Plus everyone thought that burning bones destroyed the ghost but found out it didn't, so maybe that happened with Mary and the poltergeist. So I repeat, maybe nigh-indestructibility would be better. You can list her statement in the details but also that numerous ppl thought she could be revived in season 6.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:55, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I'm new to this so I hope I'm not being rude or anything but, I just thought that Death should be listed as a primordial being in the species section due to the fact that "god" and "the Darkness" are listed as primordial beings in the species section for both of them and it says lower down on the page that he is a primordial being. Would it be better to say "species & classification" rather than just species alone?
God, Death and the Natural Order
First off, who, if not God, do you think created the Natural Order--the Law of the universe? At this point, after springing into existence, either God poofed everything into being or structured the universe with things that were already there. I mean, who knows, maybe God and death were formed from the Void/the Darkness, even though death was originally made into a character with no beginning or end. Also, do you feel like they've made death appear too much, cause I really feel like they have? Like three appearances (Swan Song, Appointment in Samarra, and Meet the New Boss) would've been enough, because now they've taken away the feel with putting him in everywhere. Your thoughts on all this? -- ImperiexSeed, 9:59 PM, July 28th 2015
Right message to put this under. To list being like God or Death as primordial entities isn't wrong if done right. Ex. Death also know as the Pale horsemen is a primordial entity that is the oldest among the Four Horsemen of the apocalypse. Ex. God is a primordial entity that is the a deity. In this way it's more of title of their origin than a race. On their templates still call them deity or horsemen respectively under way race they are but in their opening details of the articles or in background/history they can be listed as a primordial entity. In short not all primordial entities are of the same race. Does this help?[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 18:50, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
Then best to not reply to anything he asks you. Your not an admin you have no obligations to answer him. If he posts anymore bias content a ban will be issue. Now that goes to really bias content. Like if he would remove info about Sam in an article that doesn't need Sam info than it isn't bias itself, it is just something that is true in somewhat that can use. It's wrong but it's within policy technically. But adding that Dean is the hero on his page is bias and something I can ban him for. I gave him one last change but no more, even my patience is restricted. [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:13, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
I can't right now, as I asked an admin consensus it would be abuse of my power if I did. Now if does something really extreme I will be within my rights. But he has yet to cross that line, but he is within an inch close to it.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:24, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
No I hear your point, but you are the most registered user that thinks he should be, there a good amount of evidence to support that of course. But, if I let users make my decisions than that is cause to losing my admin rights plus since I asked for a consensus if I don't appear to it, that is also cause. And you would agree we need a neutral admin that comes to the wikia at least once a week. It would be like if I sided with Imperiex about adding opinions to the wikia, if I let others talk me into banning others. But, if he does anything else even a slight smug comment to you or anyone than the ban will be issued, this I promise. .[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:50, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
No problem I'm not mad, and you have given evidence. But I gave that the consensus to be impartial. Well, I wrote on my blog by Aug 1st I will make a decision that is Saturday. Unless he does anything else before then. [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 20:44, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. As for as you being an admin, I personally have no prob with it. But best to wait some more, cause how Imperiex got banned and he was one or the major one against you having admin rights again, if I remember right. You don't want ppl to say your just using it to advance yourself. Self made Policy never leave yourself open to where others can use your position or desired position against.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 13:04, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
Also, I read on your Garden of Eden page. Should we changed the info of how humans were made. I am leaving real world theories out. But, even Lucifer in the future Dean was sent to said God (made) man and described it as a hairless ape. Eve called them hairless monkeys. I just think evolved from them should be. Cause, while it it's subjective, both entities describe humans as already made as hairless apes. [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 13:14, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
I was mistaken then. But on the Eden part. Yeah Cass said that, but he never went to talk about if that lead to all life developing on Earth. As for neanderthals he said didn't know what apes would survive Neanderthals or Homo sapiens which is after ape animal classification, if I remember right . There is some evidence to support that they evolved from a ape-like state to now. But, it should be written like that how it is implied what you are saying rather an absolute. I write articles like with our previous debate on if souls are indestructible that incase they are never clear on certain things. The series evidence is then given in a way that is narrow construed and not interpret which is like the law. Inshort, this sounds better in (my opinion) Humans from evidence said Castiel that they likely evolved from apes, however it's not know for certain if Adam (the first human) evolved first from an ape like state and the first one to evolve, or was created directly as a human.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:44, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
Hey, do go ahead and open another RfA then. Ideally, follow the instructions on Supernatural Wiki:Requests for adminship to create one (as opposed to another blog post!) and I'll close it 2 weeks later. Best of luck. Calebchiam Talk 12:29, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, you have to edit the RfA page and include your nomination under the Current requests for adminship table (how else would it get there?) Also, I would advise leaving a neutral message on active users' talk pages asking them to take a look at your RfA and to give their comments, whether good or bad. This isn't political canvassing, so a short, simple notification will do. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 03:42, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
Not much evidence to support either way. But shouldn't Heaven be God's first known creation or at least possibly. I mean I am not one of those to interpret facts to support my own conclusions. But, even from the limited status they do use the Bible as the basis for the lore of God and the Angels in Supernatural they use it. And from it Heaven predates the Earth, Purgatory, and Hell. Now it's bias to confirm Heaven predates Leviathans, but it's equally bias to put to somewhere when it's not stated directly. With that said, I move it to be list as one of God's first one and (possibly) as the first known creation. Due, to his status as a holy world, with a divine garden and this way it free of bias.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 00:53, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
Last I checked I thought they were listed in order of their creation. Most are listed from oldest to youngest.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:02, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
Season eleven's summary and promo
Will we be getting season eleven's summary and promo soon? -- ImperiexSeed, 8:16 PM, August 18th 2015
Season eleven and just checking in!
I was wrong, this season is probably going to be very good and I'm very much looking forward to upcoming eleventh season!! Are you? Carver did write some pretty good episodes back in Kripke's era, and they said they're going be going back to "the good old days" (seasons 1-5), so I'm thinking season eleven will be great! According to Jared, God and Lucifer may appear in this upcoming season. This, my friend, would be awesome, especially getting to see God in action. Anyway, how you been? -- ImperiexSeed, 11:13 PM, August 30th 2015
- Dude.. You gonna answer me? I thought we're cool. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:32 PM, September 3rd 2015
- Yeah, season eleven should be awesome! And apparently, Dean and Sam I guess have latent powers (that they've inexplicably NEVER used till now, how convenient, writers) in them due to being the true vessels of Michael and Lucifer. And Sam's going to be flustered with flashbacks and memories that didn't happen in his past by an outreach of a 'higher power,' probably God. This season is at the least going to be interesting. -- ImperieSeed, 11:23 PM, September 4th 2015
We should apply for adminship
Hey EmpyreanSmoke, you and I should really apply for adminship! This wiki sorely needs active admins, and the ones here don't edit nearly enough. Whaddya say? I'll try to get back to you after you respond as soon as I can. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:45 PM, Spetember 17th 2015
- K, just made mine. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:46 PM, September 17th 2015
Just left my opinion. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:45 PM, September 17th 2015
Ok I'll support you for adminship. But, I won't for Imperiex. I don't support those I have had to block/ban.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:35, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
I put my decisions on the RFA page.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:11, September 20, 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find his, and so I posted my decision for his request on yours, thinking it was a co-own request. My apologizes, I messaged him to link me to his page to post it there officially.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:20, September 20, 2015 (UTC)
Why are the archangels so weak (and don't say I have a all-or-nothing mindset)? It's pretty clear that they're very weak. Now pretty much anyone can beat them. It's kinda sad, Kripke made them to be astronomically powerful, and now look what they've turned into -- Eve can beat them, Leviathan can beat them, Horsemen can beat them, Jesse can beat them, the Darkness can beat them, etc. Mine as well stop mentioning the archangels, seeing as they're so weak to the point where they're irrelevant. I want to know your genuine opinion, why, if the archangels are so weak, do they keep being mentioned? I miss Kripke's era, don't you? -- ImperiexSeed, 9:18 PM, September 20th 2015
Hi. Is it true that Lucifer's presence just activated Jesse Turner's abilities, and didn't have any effect when he was sent back to the cage? I vaguely remember the Q and A touching on this, but I can't remember 100%. I just need to make sure that Jesse still has his immense power despite Lucifer being back in the cage, because I just need it confirmed before I edit a page on another wiki (for powers of all media) and I really need to be sure before I remove the "while Lucifer is on Earth" note Gabriel456 (talk) 00:10, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't Gabriel just apport Dean and Sam's blood to him in 5x19?
Why didn't Gabriel just apport Dean and Sam's blood to him in Hammer of the Gods? -- ImperiexSeed, 3:20 PM, September 26th 2015
Couldn't? Why not? He's an archangel and should've been able to just snap his fingers and have the vials appear in his hand. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:28 PM, September 26th 2015
Congratulations on your successful RfA! There was less input than I would have liked, and I did notice you didn't reach out to as many users for RfA input as you could have (Raghav, FTWinchester come to mind) - unless you contacted them by means other than the talk page? In any case, I didn't want to drag the RfA out any longer so I've given you the benefit of the doubt here and passed it.
I hope the time passed since your desysop has been useful in improving you as a person - and that you'll be wiser and more judicious when using the tools granted. Remember that the tools are for the betterment of the Wiki, not for personal vendettas or to push your own agendas. They are not a symbol of superiority, nor does it excuse you from treating other users with kindness and respect. (Hopefully this pithy advice should be obvious to you!)
In terms of editing, your knowledge of Wiki markup could use some work. I recommend you read through this simple guide. 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.
Congratulations on your re-adminship! I have been watching this quietly as I needed to see how you handle it by yourself, and also because it has to be the community who decides--not just admins as this is not a plutocracy nor an oligarchy. I must say I applaud your apparent change so far and that your mention of me has not gone unnoticed. I am deeply honored that you consider me someone worthy of being emulated in terms of administrative fairness and I do hope that has instilled a greater sense of responsibility in you. FTWinchester (talk) 17:58, September 28, 2015 (UTC)
Daeva or hellhound?
Who's stronger, a daeva or a hellhound? I would say a hellhound could rip a daeva to shreds, would you agree or disagree here? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:57 PM, September 28th 2015
The higgs particle was predicted by the theory that unificates the electromagnetic force and the weak force. It is the partivle of the higgs field, by interacting with that field, particles gain a property that we call mass. By discovering the higgs particle, if was confirmed that the mathematics behind the theoy applies for reality. That has nothing to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang is predicted by general relativity. It is not an atheistic view, there is no such thing like a common "atheistic view". One atheist may be convinced, that the universe started with the big bang, another one may believe, that there are a whole bunch of universes generated in a multiverse. I know that kind of stuff, I studied it. Lambda1 (talk) 00:01, September 30, 2015 (UTC)
@EmpyreanSmoke: Ok, let me simplify this down to its barest essence for you; the word "atheist" simply means 'a lack of belief of in gods,' and NOTHING else. Thereby the strictness of the definition, the word doesn't address or account anything outside of the description of the term. So being an atheist says nothing about your morality, political stance, or whether you believe in the Big Bang, etc. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:18 PM, September 29th 2015
Why do you keep adding the fan theory about Leviathans to articles? They never discussed this in an episode and we can not just assume it. Its bad enough that you already locked the archangel pages as saying Leviathans can effortlessly kill them which was never discussed or shown, but if they don't officially clarify this we cannot be sure. This was already discussed on the talk page archangel. Simple logic doesn't apply, as just assuming is usually inccurate, and can be wrong if they say otherwise on the show or at a con. Meg was a lower tier demon with black eyes and even she disablebed a number of Leviathans at their facility in the finale. By your own simple logic and transitive property you referred to, most demons can hold their own against large numbers of Leviathans, because Meg did. When you take a more powerful demon or archangel and have it fight a Leviathan they would be even stronger then Meg was.
Hey, I'm planning to unblock the two IP users who blocked a while ago. I can see why you felt it was justified to block them, though the better way to go about dealing with this conflict would have been to semi-protect the page and then move the discussion onto the article's talk page. Their intentions in this case were not malicious, and were an honest attempt to keep our articles factual (whether they were right or not is a separate matter) but the bottom line is that we ought not block well intentioned users over these kinds of disagreements - where honestly we're all on the same side, i.e. we want a better Wiki. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 02:39, October 1, 2015 (UTC)
- p.s. edit-warring is indeed blockable (there is a 3RR, three-revert rule), but the nature of such a rule is that all users involved in the revert war will be blocked (regardless of who is ultimately 'right'.) The idea is that all parties are at fault if no one stopped the edit war to move the discussion onto a more legitimate talkspace, e.g. talk pages. Calebchiam Talk 02:42, October 1, 2015 (UTC)
I'm back home now, just so you know. How was your day, and when would you like to start working on the game again? -- ImperiexSeed, 4:55 PM, October 1st 2015
I sent you a few messages yesterday. First, I told you when I was swinging by with my friends to get some water after playing ultimate frisbee and 21, and that we were going back out. Then later, I told you when I got back home. But you still haven't responded, I hope you're doing good and would like to keep in touch with you. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:06 PM, October 3rd 2015
The Elder Scrolls: Supernatural mod
Hey EmpyreanSmoke, the story sounds interesting so far, there is a object quite similar to The Word of God in Skyirm, The Eye of Magnus: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Eye_of_Magnus - maybe that could also be considered as The Word of God.
When you guys have the story, I need some things to know:
- Do you want Lucifer's physical appearance to be a literally Dragon, than I think http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Alduin appearance would fit. (It is quite easy to construct a human form of him as well, similiar to his Nick vessel)
- I need to know his abilities and weaknesses (What may not kill, but effect him: Physical weapons, Physical weapons with magical extensions, is he vulnerable to spells, ...)
- Does he speak at all (We could integrate his aufo files from the series, but I am uncertain about the copyright in that case) ?
- How to start the quest, what triggers it.
- All the locations the story takes place (It is possible to create new locations - just takes more time)
- The protagonist: While it is Dean Winchester, a mod should not just override the player's character name.
- I think it is rather unwise to deactivate the player's magic abilities, because some players like to take
a break and make something different during a quest. In Skyrim there is no need to finish a Quest at once
I knew I forget some something: You can also play as a female character, so if Dean's the main character, one would need to backUp the previous character set, this is possible, however I would like to avoid this. In many cases it would be necessary to change the characters race as well, since you can play as an Argonian Khajiit, ... so there is no way to change a Khajiit's appearance into that of a humanoid race (Nord, Imperials, ...) without changing the race and therefore basic character settings. If you can somehow avoid using Dean as the main character it would be better, if not, it's still possible but more risky. Lambda1 (talk) 20:15, October 2, 2015 (UTC)
2) Okay, I guess his demons are the Dremora ? (It should fit into the Skyrim lore as well)
4) The player should have the ability to start the quest at any time, no matter if he played already 100 hours or just started the game. Otherwise he would be forced to start from the beginning - that should not be a requierement. 5) Okay 6) Changing a player's character name is rather uncommon in the mod skyrim community - however not a big deal at all.
7) I would suggest the following: As long as the quest is active - you are Dean, if you deactivate the quest in the main menu, you are your former character again.
8) Yes I would, there are cases in which changing the character settings (Race, gender, appearance, ...) can lead to savegame problems. The safest solution is to copy all the data of the previous character in a BackUp file and to reload it if the player want's to delete the mod or just want to deactivate it. Everything should be perfectly reversible. Lambda1 (talk) 21:20, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I am glad to hear more about the story soon, if you are certain that a specific character is definitly in the mod and wont be changed, I can already start to create the 3D models (if no reusable 3d model it already in the game). Thanks ! Lambda1 (talk) 19:08, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
I invited User Kmmb to join us, i hope you are okay with that. According to her user page, she is a coder and any further person could speed up the development Lambda1 (talk) 19:46, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
Well, we have not really a time limit and of course you don't need to write the story "at once". However, if you don't find the time to write the dialogues, I would ask Imp for the last time if he may be willing to write them. If he doesn't want to write them either, I would make a blog on this wiki on that matter, to find some established user to wirte the dialogues. I can't do it, I am totally useless when it comes to such things. Lambda1 (talk) 20:02, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
Should we remove Naomi from Ruler of Heaven? Because, if I recall correctly, Metatron stated she was simply a ruler of a faction among many factions fighting for rulership of Heaven. I asked this on the talk page 2 months ago, but no-one has replied at all. If she was merely a ruler of a faction, I don't think she should be listed as a ruler of heaven.
Just because you made a blog and say you know a writer, and think you are right because you are an admin, does not mean you can make your own fan fiction true on this site. What you are trying to add was not stated in the show, and no consensus as you say was reached on a blog. And since you are an admin, you should be blocking Lambda1 and his Ip 188.8.131.52, as in this case HE was reverting more than he is supposed to, as Calebechian said if its more than three, the person should be blocked. Since I (184.108.40.206) only undid his fan fiction 3 times, 220.127.116.11 reverted 3 times, 18.104.22.168 reverted once and 22.214.171.124 reverted once, and Lambda1 readded his fan theory 6 times, which is 3 times more than Calebechian said someone should be doing. He told you this after you wrongfully blocked me for removing your fan theory last week. (126.96.36.199 01:34, October 7, 2015 (UTC))
Season 11 Title Card
New Wiki main image if you're interested. I found it on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Supernatural/comments/3o0x28/mediaany_of_you_guys_noticed_this_on_the_new_intro/
Making sure a few admins see it.
It is pointless to list The First Blade, Death, Death's scythe as weaknesses now since they no longer work or exist. Cain can't be killed by The Darkness etc. since it's non-canon. Do you see where I'm going with this? The past is dead and it no longer applies. 188.8.131.52 16:55, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
Well God and the Leviathans are still alive so you have to edit weaknesses that no longer applies to them. The Darkness is the only thing that can harm God now etc. 184.108.40.206 17:07, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
You don't like tension. Do you? :/
Adding anything in the weaknesses section of the articles that was not stated in the show is a fan theory or speculation. It is unnecessary to say it is being debated, and makes it still appear that leviathans and angels are the weakness of dragons, which was never shown stated or implied in the show. Its not the only unbiased thing to do, because you are still trying to make your theory show up on the page, which is wrong. The unbiased thing to do is to not have any information, and properly discuss it, but why do that when you can just revert anyone who tries to edit the site, and then block them or the page so it can't be edited. Thats no unbiased or cooperating with others because you are forcing your views onto the page over others.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 18:59, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
The unbiased edits you are adding are not unbiased, but are you adding your fan theory into an article and saying its unbiased. You try to say anyone who disagrees with you should discuss it on the talk page but then you block them or lock the page so only what you say matters. Calebchiam said a while ago that in these cases the article should be left in the status quo before the changes were made adding fan theories, so that is what should be done.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 04:08, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
The problem with your weakness edit is that you try to turn it to a fan fiction paradigm. This is the official canon Supernatural wikia. Using God, Death, The First Blade as weaknesses is pointless. God never kills anyone. Death never kills the bad guys. The blade is ineffective since the mark is gone. You should only put effective weaknesses. It's like putting black holes as weakness for humans. It will never happen. 220.127.116.11 09:38, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
- I've left a response here. Empyrean, I can see you are attempting to be fair (which is great), but SPNFan does have a point. I haven't reverted your edits for now, I'll leave that to you to resolve. Once you've rectified that, you should also lower the protection levels. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 14:39, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
- Please refer to SW:CONSENSUS#No_consensus. This is logically the fairest and most unbiased action to take precisely because it reverts to the last possible state where there were no disagreements. Calebchiam Talk 02:00, October 12, 2015 (UTC)
- In response to this, trivia is not the place for speculation - that is left to user pages and user blogs. The trivia section is the place for amusing factoids that don't properly fit into any other section of the article. e.g. In the Supernatural Guidebook, Bobby's favourite hobby was playing with tarantulas. This is a completely made-up example. But you can see why it would be in Trivia; because it has no relevance to the plot and because there is no way to fit it in anywhere else on the article. Calebchiam Talk 02:07, October 12, 2015 (UTC)
- Please refer to SW:CONSENSUS#No_consensus. This is logically the fairest and most unbiased action to take precisely because it reverts to the last possible state where there were no disagreements. Calebchiam Talk 02:00, October 12, 2015 (UTC)