Orion Invictus

aka Orion

Content Moderator Discussions Moderator
  • I live in Everywhere
  • My occupation is Supreme ruler of the multiverse
  • I am  

I do not reply to unsigned messages.


Hi, welcome to Supernatural Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Pestilence page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Kyle Nin (Talk) 21:20, October 29, 2010


Sorry I missed your message. I normally don't get on a chat, what you needed to talk about?[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 20:09, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

Can you leave me a message about it? I can't get on the chat today.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 20:58, January 21, 2016 (UTC)


Ok I'll be on in 20 mins. But can only stay on for ten minutes.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 21:32, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bots

Calebchiam would be the best guy to talk to about these matters. Although I have not come across an explicit rule against bots, I do not have the experience Caleb has. FTWinchester (talk) 03:55, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

If it means the betterment of the wiki, then I'm all for it. Although I've seen that bots have a tendency to overwhelm a Wiki's Activity page. We might probably miss some user's vandalism or major changes on a high traffic page. RaghavD"I'm a CLASSIC man" 05:55, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that. RaghavD"I'm a CLASSIC man" 10:07, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Oh and Dean doesn't call Tessa an angel sarcastically. It's point blank. Reapers are angels. Even if was sarcastic, it doesn't change the fact that in SPN, Reapers are angels. I hate it too. But that's canon now. RaghavD"I'm a CLASSIC man" 10:10, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Reaper consensus

According to our wikia policy Supernatural Wiki:Consensus , silence is the weakest for of consensus.

"In some cases, consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident. One can find out whether an edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others. However, in discussions regarding policy change, silence may not necessarily imply consent."

As nobody complained about it for over a year, the current consensus is that reapers are angels. You might want to re- start the discussion and bring your arguements into the debate. Lambda1 (talk) 11:36, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

There were two groups, one supporting that reapers are angels, and another one who were against this classification of reapers. http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Angels#Angels_and_reapers.3F The conversation did not only took place on the reapers page. However, as nobody complained about it for over a year, that's the current consensus. Feel free to bring in your arguments, that might leed to a more profound consensus. Lambda1 (talk) 11:47, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Reapers + Retcons

Hey, man. Don't get me wrong. Really. I hate the retcons as much as you do. But the whole point of this wiki is to stick to canon. Everything else we want to think otherwise we have to keep in out blogs (that's why I have many blogs full of rants). I'm just upholding the wiki's rules. FTWinchester (talk) 13:13, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Like I said on the Reapers talk page, I have no desire to impose my views or preferences on any articles. I had reason to doubt Glass's statement's validity. Some of those reasons still exist, but the writers decide everything on the show; not us (fans). What they say goes.
Orion (T-B-C) 13:17, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
I did have my doubts as well, and I really wish that the fan response was double or even triple so that they could have realized how huge the mistake they did. FTWinchester (talk) 13:19, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
I wish writers in general were as well-versed in their work as the fans. It's like they don't even watch their own shows.
Orion (T-B-C) 13:22, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Not different at all, in fact what i was trying to say is that I completely agree with you. By all means if you find any speculation especially statements using words like possibly or most likely, remove it. I've been doing it for years. If anyone gives you trouble go to the talk page and then the admins if it continues to be a problem. Bkshadows (talk)

By the way, FTWinchester approved that I can change Reaper pages, if I have enough sources. I do have, shall I? SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:40, June 27, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Re:Bot request

Hi. Just letting you know I've seen your message, and I'll need a while to check out the specs of this request - currently caught up in other matters. Thanks for your work! Calebchiam Talk 04:13, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, could you state exactly what kind of tasks you would like to automate using the bot? Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 14:42, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I've handled bot requests so I'm aware of this actually. I just wanted to know what tasks you had in mind. Bot account username? I'll go ahead and grant you the rights. Calebchiam Talk 03:38, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
Right, I'd forgotten that the special allowances 'coats get on the RuneScape Wiki aren't universal. In any case, not that I speak on behalf of Supernatural Wiki, but I don't think there'll be any opposition to your running a bot for said tasks. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:40, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
Forum:The Impala Calebchiam Talk 04:43, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Speculation

First, I appreciate your dedication to upholding what is canon. Second, i would like to ask if you could tell me which admin was that?

As for the actual speculation on articles--I am actively trying to change and remove the speculations here. Even before I was an admin, I have been digging up old debates and challenging falsely--"established" information in the articles if I thought it was not supported by canon.

I have been advocating the use of reference tags and citations to ensure our articles are supported by canon and to avoid adding fan speculation. I have also suggested several times in many talk pgaes how to phrase character claims that are dubious or are seemingly contradicted by other parts of the canon.

What you must understand is that not only is it difficult for just the admins to check and recheck every article we have--we also have other functions to carry out. For example, I am also caught up in categorizing articles, fixing broken links, orphan pages, dead ends, organizing templates, etc. It's overwhelming for me to perform my admin duties on top of being an article contributor. And like I said, my admin duties are not limited to just checking articles for speculation. I can not change this all by myself. I need the help of other admins and the community. FTWinchester (talk) 23:31, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hey Blaziken, you left a link on my talk page, as I understood its about removing speculations right? Couldn't check much... Can you explain me? I'd like to be helpful. SeraphLucifer (talk) 14:20, February 8, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I am willing to help then SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:31, February 8, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Except there is no evidence to say the Ark was made before the flood. So listing the trivia that Hands of God were thought unlikely, to survive the flood or the 20th century isn't speculation. Its what Lucifer said. Plus listing the Ark made before the flood when it wasn't specific on which were made when, is speculation. Because of the 20th Century reference. If Lucifer said ONLY the flood, than the Ark could have only been made before the flood.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 13:49, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

Interpreting facts to support your own conclusions is just shy of speculations. Write it as most seemed to predate the flood, but leaves some from for a possiblity that some might have been made after it. Lucifer's quote wasn't exact.... like a lot of this series. But he didn't say something like this. I didn't think any had survived the flood. This leaves unbias towards both conclusions.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 15:55, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

Castiel said that only Lucifer could time travel thus implying that time travel required wings.Also Tamiel was able to teleport which needs wings so he should at least be listed as having wings.For the rest of the angels and archangels you are probably right ,we should wait and see.Kkapoios (talk) 17:44, February 21, 2016 (UTC)


Lucifer Apported Sam, Dean, and Castiel in the temp cage with him. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 21:09, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Rowena did sabotage the spell, so that Lucifer could use his powers. Hell is not Lucifer's domain in the sense that it grants him excess power. God was the one who created Hell, and he created it to serve as a prison. It is Lucifer's domain now in the sense that he is ruling over it, but he doesn't have any extra abilities there. Its not that Lucifer doesn't trust the demons, he just views them as servants (said so by Crowley), and so of course he would have them run his arrunds for him. Darchangel 66-The Light who subdues the Darkness (talk) 22:21, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

You made your point, but even the series cast said I (Think) they drew upon the first day of creation. It bares some similarities to that God separated the Darkness from the Light. Like I said I will allow that it as long as they don't say the writers didused Genesis. They can say the War with the Darkness draws some similarities to the first day to Genesis. Also I have been for years saying bias be taken out of articles. Ask many people here, plus I was the one that put which you took away God's need to use Amara to facilitate creation. Now with the Hand of God maybe I did assume they would follow the real-world time-line of biblical items. But I admit that and corrected myself. But, I repeat Trivia Sections can allow miscellaneous information.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:19, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

Re: User with false info

Thanks for letting me know. The activity, while frowned upon, only happened twice and has not happened again the past 6 days. A warning was issued but if it continues, I will drop a temporary ban. FTWinchester (talk) 13:33, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

Ok I believe Supernatural uses Kabbalah to state how creation began.

•Ein is translated as null, void, or nothingness, and corresponds to 0. (Amara) Instead of Nothingness they used the Synonyms form Darkness is associated with.

•Ein Sof is translated as infinity, and corresponds to 00, and is the emanator of 10 Sephirot. (God) the appearance of the Light.

•Ein Sof Ohr is translated as infinite light, and corresponds to 000. (Archangels) God's Light.

•Ein caused Ein Sof, and Ein Sof begot Ein Sof Ohr. The creation of the world.

Now that is still theory. However the user isn't stating contradictions in their opinion. It's similarity. It's similar to parts of the Genesis story. But as long as it doesn't contradict or is stated in the series' canon info I will allow it. Trivia section are for trivia things, or miscellaneous. Now if in trivia they state, something like. "Genesis was accurate in describing the creation of the world." Than that is moving past trivia. This is my decision as of now. Also, I didn't want to put back into it property place in the paragraph. In the trivia section. Only trivia that is part of the page or is similar can be allowed.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:31, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

You asked to defer to my judgement. I see no harm in this. Trivia sections are details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value by definition. They are the proper place on the articles to allow things like this. Like even if the Darkness in the Bible is credited as the night. (Which some scholars state it wasn't the night but the form of the world before God gave it form.) But that is a religion translation debate. I think it can stay. But inform the user if you want, it has to stay to where it falls under being similar. And not to state that these trivia details are true. Some trivia details are facts. That aren't worth putting into the main articles paragraphs.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 00:27, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Ban request

Done and done. Thank you for your participation. By the way, Emboar is aesthetically better than Blaziken. FTWinchester (talk) 21:52, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah notifications. I was in a hurry. In the context, it effectively required a ban. But yeah. Emboar >>> Blaziken. LMAO. FTWinchester (talk) 22:06, March 15, 2016 (UTC)


Metatron said God used The Darkness to implement creation. "The truth? It would make the bible thumper heads explode. I mean they want their God to be a finger snapping all powerful creator you know. They want magic, Mary Poppins. But what he did... creation that took work took sacrifice. In order to create the world God had to give up the other thing he had ever known. He had to betray and sacrifice his only kin. The Darkness his sister. This isn't a grammar issue, Metatron confirmed this until contradicting inform us differently.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:40, March 22, 2016 (UTC)


Hey Blaziken, can I have your opinions about Gabriel's status? SeraphLucifer (talk) 20:35, March 22, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Re Gabriel

Thank you for your opinions... SeraphLucifer (talk) 12:01, March 25, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Re.Re Metatron

Interpreting facts to support your own conclusions is no different than speculation. Metatron's quote was direct. "In order to create the world God had to give up the only thing he had ever known. He had to betray and sacrifice his only kin. The Darkness his sister. Now how she was used to facilitate creation is unknown, but she was used in making Creation.

P.S. Are you asking me to lock those pages to prevent non logged in users from editing?[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:26, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

I never said they can't create on their own power. But to create the World|Creation|Universe however you want to name it God had to sacrifice Amara in someway. I'll lock those pages after I leave work at 8.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:43, March 26, 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I'm just here to ask a question. Where does it say Amara is equal to God in power? Did she say it? Or was it Lucifer? Kajune (talk) 17:27, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

She said she was more powerful than God, Lucifer said she was equal to God, and the lore supports her claim (she was unfazed by a Hand of God-powered Lucifer, and God was only able to defeat her with the archangels). However, I doubt it'll say on her page that she's more powerful than God unless it comes from God himself.
Orion (T-B-C) 17:35, April 18, 2016 (UTC)


Hey Blaziken, hope you are doing fine, can you check Horseman pages, I feel like they contain speculation, I will check too but your help would be useful. SeraphLucifer (talk) 10:50, May 1, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer


Thank you, nice work! SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:39, May 1, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

A small favor

Hey Blaziken, hope your fine... I won't be here for few days maybe. I got a serious injury... I'd be happy if you can check the witch page since NoahAquarius is corrupting the page. Thank you... SeraphLucifer (talk) 21:34, May 5, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Demon Soul

A cambion is technically a demon because it is half human and half demon. Do us all a favor and wqtch season 5 episode 6 I Believe The Children Are Our Future. Castiel makes it perfectly clear. User:The Inner Hate (User User talk:The Inner Hate) 1:53 PM May 6th 2016.

Whore of Babylon

Eve was dead but she returned. How else would they know exactly how to kill her? The whore might come back.User:The Inner Hate (User User talk:The Inner Hate) 2:15 PM May 6th 2016.

God's Sexual choice

Although you are right, don't bother adding he is bisexual Blaziken. That contributer will revert it. Wait for admins to intervene. SeraphLucifer (talk) 13:39, May 7, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Well, all I can say is good luck and have fun. Good for your edit number tho... :) SeraphLucifer (talk) 13:45, May 7, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I can't make them more active. I can ask if they at least make a more active attempt to check on things here. I try to at least come once or twice a week, also I locked the God page. Now about Nign-Omniscience. Omniscience is all knowing or perfect knowledge since God isn't all knowing he has a separate awareness over creation. Like his mind can be anywhere and everywhere, as an example. If he was Omniscient he would know already everything that will happen. Since he doesn't he need or has the power to view creation.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 17:59, May 7, 2016 (UTC)

I can't make admins not a head admin. Only Cal or wikia staff can make new admins.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 18:46, May 7, 2016 (UTC)

Admin nomination

I suppose we need another admin, there should be an sysop here who is around on a daily basis to enforce the SPN wikia policies. I once declined my nomination back in December 2015, since there are often weeks I can't be around. But by Any registered user (no I.P. addresses) may nominate another registered user (again - no I.P. addresses) for administrative or forumadmin privileges. Self-nominating is allowed, but may be frowned upon depending on the case. Potential candidates may inform other users of their desire to be given permissions of a group if they wish to avoid self-nominating. Candidates for bureaucracy must already be sysops. Bureaucratship is usually granted only if there is a need for a new bureaucrat. http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/SW:RFA I nominate you for adminship. Lambda1 (talk) 16:42, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware how you handle speculation and fan theories. I am a strong supporter of keeping all fan theories out of the articles and will keep suggesting to other editors to use ref tags for every edit. But as an admin you are simply an enforcer of the wiki's rules, I think you are able to remain objective even if you don't agree on some topic (Lucifer- Michael age). Maybe I am wrong, but it is evident that we need one more admin. Lambda1 (talk) 18:25, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the writers don't tend to answer questions on twitter. We have been there before:
http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Lambda1/EmpyreanSmoke_Admin_right_removal_and_infinite_ban_(Closed) I am actually aware that we did the whole Michael/ Lucifer thing not completely as we were supposed to (http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Supernatural_Wiki:Consensus). By the wikis rules, the status quo should have remained until we make consensus. Twilight acted as he was supposed by locking the pages, unfortunately he isn't that often online here. As long as you simply act as an enforcer of the rules (even if you would don't agree with each one), you wouldn't be a bad admin. Lambda1 (talk) 18:43, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's common practise to use ref tags. This ensures that every info can quickly be verified. I don't always remember in which episode something had been stated, ref tags haelp a lot on this. Lambda1 (talk) 18:49, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure if it is possible to change the policies with the majority, since http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Supernatural_Wiki:Supernatural_Wiki_is_not...#..._a_democracy
I don't always remember every fact, especially when it comes to things out of my favorite characters or the characters commonly appearing in the show. It also matters if I want to watch the scene again. I recently did not know in which episode they tried to freeze Lucifer with the Colt. With the proper references on the Lucifer page, I quickly found out that this happened in "Abandon all Hope". Without the ref tags, this would have been a lot more time consuming. Lambda1 (talk) 19:05, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
But majority votes are also prone to manipulation. If an user creates multiple accounts (using VPN/ Tor to hide his IP) he can manipulate those votes. I would only support it, if votes were limited to longer registered users with a minimum edit count of 500 or so. It's similar on wikipedia. Also, the majority is not always right. I can guarantee you that most people would vote that Michael is older than Lucifer. (Which I also think - but it's disputed. It's just an example, I dont want to restart this debatte ).Lambda1 (talk) 19:22, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

How do you guarantee that a user isn't tunneling through TOR or a server ? You can log his user agent/ screen resolution and running web apps but this can be manipulated as well. There is no failsafe way to ensure that an user is gaming the system. Keep in mind that all the data commited by the client to the wikia server can be controlled from the clients side. You can use advanced methods like mouse movement pattern recognition, but this isn't completely accurate either. I agree on that other part though. Lambda1 (talk) 19:38, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that should work. Lambda1 (talk) 19:50, May 9, 2016 (UTC)


Hey Blaziken. What do you think about an current admin election? Which users are capable of being an admin from your point of view? SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:43, May 9, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer


Thank you Blaziken but I don't think I'd be a good admin. I'd just ban a lot of people. Also I have 0 information about being an admin... Also my Eng's fine but sometimes I can't understand referances... :) SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:50, May 9, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer


Im sorry about being rude before. But it is common sence for Bela to be a demon. As we all know, the fans were informed about the creation of demons from Ruby, that they are in fact tortured human souls, unless they have the mark of cain as human, and die. Or in Lilith's case, Lucifer immiddietely transforms them

Re: Fan Fiction

Deleted. Thanks for your vigilance. Have you seen the new Pokemon starters, by the way? FTWinchester (talk) 11:31, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Shame. Alright, never mind then. Just hit my talk page if you find any more anomalies I can help with. FTWinchester (talk) 11:49, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

The Morning Star

Actually Crowley did refer to Lucifer as the Morning Star in an earlier season about how he would wipe out demons after humans. Said "When the Morning Star cleans house we're next" or something like that. Also when Sam was hallucinating Dean as Lucifer in season 7, when he walked into an abandoned factory it had a sign saying Morning Star something. {{SUBST:User:Ber246/autosig}} 17:48, May 13, 2016 (UTC)

Re: The Morning Star

It's all good. I just wanted to clear up any confusion on our parts lol. Thanks. {{SUBST:User:Ber246/autosig}} 17:57, May 13, 2016 (UTC)

lucifer retcon

hey blaziken,

nice point you make concerning the lucifer retcon. it would be valid as fuck, if amara hadn't used figurative language before... IF... 11x06 amara said, she was going to "settle a score... the oldest score", which is, you might have guessed it already, a figurative expression, thus making her use figurative language. so please tell me again how "first son" couldn't have been meant figuratively :)Axealaska (talk) 01:27, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

Re: lucifer retcon

so if you say "with lucifer not being god's favorite and all that", amara's first statement calling lucifer god's favorite would indeed be wrong. however, i think considering both statements, luifer being his favorite and being the first son, as rhetorical device, it all makes perfect sense. describing the same thing twice with different words is a legitimate rhetorical device, emphasizing luficer's significant role,  and i think it's not too complicated to be used by amara. Axealaska (talk) 10:18, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Death's claim

Death also said that he could last forever but he died. According to him, he can kill God but it isn't certain yet. That is why I made it possibly. Metatron says that he doesn't know the names of people but he also knows that he is aware of everything. I think we should re-arrange it as you wrote. Also Darkness never said that he will kill her, even God said she won't kill me, cage me. SeraphLucifer (talk) 13:22, May 16, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

GABRIEL snapping his fingers kill her with ease, and he pretended did not resist the spell , and the probability he could easily pull it off , the blood he wanted to take in the manual to WAS NOT ITS CONFLICT


Hey, I am online now. SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:41, May 18, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Did u thinking Kali are stronger than nigh-powerful arch Gabriel? RLY? Gabriel is very simulated and did'nt wanted  be against her and pagan, cuz Lucifer almost here , and Deen said: "Gabriel - they are u'r siblings, u must help them'. Last moment Gabriel saves Kali.

Ahem. God's done nothing impressive in season eleven. What has he done that you would consider impressive or cool? As God, he's suppose to be awing and impressive, and he's not. What I removed from his character page is warranted, as it had some incorrect information on it. -- Thescarypea, 6:01 AM, May 20th 2016

Hey Blaziken, can we meet at chat? SeraphLucifer (talk) 10:27, June 21, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I'll be waiting. SeraphLucifer (talk) 16:55, June 21, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Hmm, I'll be afk for now, lets talk later. SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:08, June 21, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Are you available now? SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:48, June 26, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Battle in "We Happy Few"

Is it a good idea to write about this battle too? Just curious. Kajune (talk) 15:22, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Yo considering the love is a weskness comment? Nope she cannot ahrm dean, but neither can he. So yea its a weakness for both of em.  

Amara's Quote

Yeah no problem, I just happened to have been watching that scene again while I was editing some stuff like punctuations and adding some more details on the Darkness' page. --Ber246 (talk) 08:55, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

They might not be "as" bound like Amara's and God's symbiotic relationship as pillars. But their roles are to a degree subjected and rules by the Natural Order. Like Tessa said to Dean as Death, it just IS. If they weren't bound at all, they could do whatever they wanted. But their job is bound, if they don't do it or not right chaos happens. The order can be bend though.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 16:39, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

If Death wasn't bound to any degree. Than his job he could stop it or change its rules at a moments notice. Being restricted to its laws and bound by them is a distinction without a difference.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 16:58, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

My stand still stands that Death and his reapers are still at least restricted to even bound (meaning have to follow its rules or chaos will happen). They have a job in the natural order and if they or someone doesn't follow it right, problems can form.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 21:38, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

bound2 bound/ noun plural noun: bounds; noun: bound 1. a territorial limit; a boundary. "the ancient bounds of the forest" a limitation or restriction on feeling or action. "it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the issue could arise again" technical a limiting value..

See it's HOW bound they are. Bound doesn't necessary mean, absolute subjugation. A limitation or restriction on feeling or action.

God and Amara are bound, but can still break it by killing one of themselves. However doing so violates the order. Same with Death and his reapers. Even if their jobs can be passed on, whomever is doing it, must follow the order. They are bound, but they are technically able to go against the order. But they aren't above it or so far outside of its influence that they can do what they want, and no repercussion to follow. Even Eve said, she follows it with her children. It's not like if all monsters die the world will end, but follows it regardless and see isn't bound to it. Her actions aren't restrictioned at all by the order in this manner. See the difference?[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 17:55, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

Compromise if you say Death and his reapers are restricted by the Natural Order, to where even they can't break it without repercussions I live with this. As no matter how you spin it. The evidence is Death follows the order as to not make chaos. His reapers also follow it, as if they don't death can stop. Again season 4 proved that with Tessa.

The way your talking, it sounds like Death can break the order without any problems or possible problems. Which even he admits "Wrecking the Natural Orders aren't fun when you have to mop up the mess." (Put this as its direct response to your message.) Also a consensus is more than one person, is the whole or majority of the members that make a consensus by policy not one.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:27, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

I checked the person contributes. Techincally he isn't adding false info. Unless I overlooked something. But a lot of it is unneeded.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 23:31, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

He said a not the supremely powerful. In this case supremely is synonymous with powerful. After all God and Amara are the strongest beings, with Death being in the same class. So in the the SNP universe they are the pinnacle of power. But I am not saying it's the correct way to describe them in the articles.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 13:05, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Repeat false info what be saying The Supremely Not A. It's technical but a block requires direct false info. God is in the same base class as Amara but she still surpasses him on overal power.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 13:28, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Spellchecked destroyed my edit. I'm saying what he is putting isn't within my rights as an admin to block. Also how is God not in her class? She said before he made anything they were equals. If she was THAT stronger, even with just the two of them she wouldn't consider them equal. Lucifer even said in terms of raw power their equal. Amara might be able to overpower God, but can't throw out everything else that is said by all parties. If the user puts God is THE supremely powerful than that is false info. But I'll say what he is putting isn't the most accurate wording.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 15:12, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

That seems more of a professional way to describe it. But again Amara might be overall. But they are equals in the sense they have a symbolic relationship of equal force within the Natural Order. Look at it like this, God could put wards up and make a bar that not even Amara could find him in. Yes she is stronger, but not a power distance like betwen the Archangels and Angels.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 16:04, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Yes but not as THE only A. Meaning one of. If I block him and he goes to wikia, this could cause problems. For as unlike false info that is in DIRECT knowable contradiction to the series lore, his far under a gray area. He could argue he means as one of the most powerful, which is true. But maybe some of his edits should be clearer on what he means.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 16:53, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Death's Claim

Yeah, you have a right point. I want to mention that Billie's quote in 11x23. He said she'd reap God. That doesn't exactly killing him. Death's statement is the same IMO. SeraphLucifer (talk) 21:57, June 10, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Status Unknown

Can I ask you a question? I noticed quite a handful of characters have an "Unknown" status, Sam Winchester included, so I was wondering if it's okay to make a category for these characters. What do you think? Kajune (talk) 12:22, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

So you want me to unblock him? And according to policy until a new season airs we can't change canon usually. I could barely understand that clip, I "think" he said he will return. But until then he his character Death is considered dead.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:41, June 19, 2016 (UTC)


Hi, Blaziken. Since I made a page for Chuck's house, I was thinking of making a page for Amara's lair, named "The Darkness' Lair". What do you think? Kajune (talk) 15:50, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you would give your opinion of my RFA, such as support or disapproval. Here Zane T 69 (talk) 14:56, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Understandable. You would make a good Admin though. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:48, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Lady Tony Bevile Big Bad?

Every new characted introduced has been a big bad. Lilith (smoke form and season 3), lucifer, god cas aka leviathan cass, metatron, abaddon, mark of cain dean, The Darkness. Youre not an admin so stop revsering my edits. There's your damn source. Proof from every past finale.

Re:Lucifer Morningstar

Thanks a lot Blaziken, I knew that "she" was literally their mother but your source proves the claim. Thanks. SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:24, June 27, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Maybe, one day... But not today. SeraphLucifer (talk) 15:38, June 27, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Re: Inner Hate

Done. Thank you. Is it true you don't want to become an admin here because you're already one somewhere else? You could be an admin or at least have other privileges, because of your contributions and vigilance. FTWinchester (talk) 20:51, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

Well alright then. FTWinchester (talk) 22:12, June 28, 2016 (UTC)


Hey Blaziken can we talk? SeraphLucifer (talk) 08:47, June 30, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I was wondering why you reverted the edit, on the "Sex and Violence" page? Zane T 69 (talk) 17:01, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

I saw all that, it seems to be a constructive edit. It looks like you removed it. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:40, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I'l look at that and see if I can just remove the excess spaces, leaving the information. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:43, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Blaze. Seraph and I, have been working on removing outdated, unused, redundant, or junk templates. We were wondering if you would assist us? We mainly need a more experienced coder to evaluate templates. If you can help, please inform one of us of a good time for you, we would greatly appreciate your help. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:43, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. I may have found a way to get our tasks done anyway. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:23, November 3, 2016 (UTC)

Minor edit

Hey, can you tell me what the "Minor edit" option means, when you save an edit? Kajune (talk) 20:39, July 14, 2016 (UTC)


We have pages for non-canon characters but I was wondering if I could do pages for other non-canon stuff like spells??? I was thinking of doing one for the Forty-Year from Supernatural: Witch's Canyon and the counterspell and wanted permission before doing so.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:55, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

A little favor

Hey Blaziken,  can you use your bot to change word "Cas" to "Cass"? I'd be grateful. SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:37, October 18, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Why'd you remove the true statements about it not being confirmed? Zane T 69 (talk) 22:24, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I just thought it would prevent future edit wars by putting the info there. It's never been clarified; which kills or effects which, and that seemed like a truthful, neutral, and unbiased statement. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:43, November 13, 2016 (UTC)


I haven't seen you here in a while, though I think I noticed you on the Fairy Tail wikia. Correct me if I'm wrong. Well, thanks for your rare contributions to this wikia. Kajune (talk) 09:24, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, I hope you get better. Good luck on your recovery. Kajune (talk) 09:50, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Death and God

Hey Blaziken, it's been a while good to see you again. About God and Death, we now know that God is more powerful than Death. Death is not able to kill Darkness but God is able to. SeraphLucifer (talk) 11:27, October 9, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

God said that he could kill her, but he never wanted to. Even when she was weakened, he was not trying to harm her. He never intended to hurt her, only lock her away for the good of his creation. That is the difference. Death said that he was unable to kill Dean because he got the Mark. It is awful that season 11 had so many retcons and plot holes but as we know, Death cannot kill Darkness, only God can. It is suspicious that even Death could kill God. It is only implied he'd be the one who reap him, even Billy said that he'd reap God. We can even say that God is older than Death. He told Metatron that at the beginning he was there. Metatron said you weren't alone, the Darkness was with you. Death wasn't even mentioned. Besides that there was no indication that Death is stronger than God. Death could be bound, he was not able to destroy souls. SeraphLucifer (talk) 19:59, October 9, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Castiel's Awakening

Didn't the CE only said that nobody has power over the Empty? Hearing a telepathic sound is different IMO. I think it should be worth noting but not something as God can't do. SeraphLucifer (talk) 12:09, November 3, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I made a change, do you think it is better? SeraphLucifer (talk) 12:21, November 3, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Exactly. SeraphLucifer (talk) 12:30, November 3, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer


Hey Orion, can we meet at chat? SeraphLucifer (talk) 08:05, November 4, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

It's OK, we'll speak when you are avaiable. SeraphLucifer (talk) 19:03, November 4, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I am active atm. SeraphLucifer (talk) 20:06, November 4, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Just to start, I wasn't "complaining", I was informing you to not remove the image to AVOID an edit war as you had not given any reason to why you had removed it so as far as I could assume was you alone disagreed with the addition of image of the Cosmic Entity. Secondly, I was unaware of this discussion you spoke of on the talk page, but it would help if from now on you could add "See talk page" when changing or removing info on a talk page to avoid both confusion and edit wars. 21:17, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

I just checked the Cosmic Entity talk page and there is nothing regarding the removal of the info on him from the Primordial Entities page nor denouncing that he was one, only a discussion questioning his age that had not come to a conclusion yet. From what I can gather based on the most recent comment posted by SearphLucifer asking, "So we have to change it like "The Cosmic Entity is a mysterious being who rules the Empty, a place which predates God and Amara" right?" which had yet to be responded, so I assuming you misconstrued that as a decision rather than a question ad/or that it meant the Cosmic Entity is not a primordial entity, "a mysterious being" does NOT automatically denounce him as a primordial entity, he can be both. You decided on your own (not by a consensus) that all info and images should be removed from the page based on an "unconcluded discussion, therefore you were the one starting an edit war, not me. I have since added the info and image back to the page back and in the future, I advise you check with the participants in an active discussion before taking any action based on what has been said thus far to avoid jumping to conclusions that may be wrong ore premature. 22:19, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

God and the CE.

I edited it see if that is clearer or not I changed it to focus on the Empty instead of the thing in it. thanks for say what was wrong with it.  I went back and watched that part.  I also noticed he never named him self either somthing i did not catch the first time. just the he was "your friendly neighborhood cosmic entity".  

ThomasNealy (talk) 10:24, November 16, 2017 (UTC)


"List of the various species (not individual characters) of supernatural creatures created by Eve."

so what/why was it the wrong to add monster to it?ThomasNealy (talk) 14:13, December 9, 2017 (UTC)

and you didn't fix it by removing the "s"? seems a little quick to use undo rather than improving it and correcting a typo. you clearly knew what I meant.  I think people are to quick to use the undo button rather then make a minor adjustment to what was added. But regardless I thank you for catching it. ThomasNealy (talk) 14:20, December 9, 2017 (UTC)

Forum talk

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

Changing links

I have seen you make the same edits not to mention that is what your bot does as well. So why undo it when I make the same changes?--ThomasNealy (talk) 20:19, December 20, 2017 (UTC)

My bot changed redirects to direct links (for example, linking to Sam Winchester instead of Sam). You're doing the opposite, changing direct links to redirects.

Orion (T-B-C) 21:10, December 20, 2017 (UTC)

My mistake then. A lot of the minor edits I see for links are shorting the link not making it longer. If that is what your Bot is supposed to do then you might want to start it back up again. --ThomasNealy (talk) 21:14, December 20, 2017 (UTC)

The matter was addressed and Thomas was given a strong warning, due to previous instances of glitches in the visual editor and his insulting you. He was advised to take a break, hopefully you two will stop having such negative interactions. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:16, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Category Correction

Sure! That's fine, although I don't have long today before I finish editing, so it might crossover to tomorrow. Thanks, that would be really helpful. Dtol (talk) 21:09, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dtol (talk) 20:01, January 6, 2018 (UTC)

Not at the moment, no. But mostly, it's about minimising unnecessary code and repetitions on pages, which isn't that easy to do in some cases. Thanks though, you've been a huge help. Dtol (talk) 16:31, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

I've just thought of something. I'm not sure if it's possible, or to what extent it is possible, but it would be great if there was consistency between the angel's pages. E.g. on every character who is an angel, add God, Angels, Archangels, The Darkness, Jane, Jack and Queen of Sheba to their family. Also, on angel character pages, the Archangels should be listed as 'older brothers', since it fits with other pages (e.g. War). If you're not too busy. Thanks! Dtol (talk) 19:31, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Dtol (talk) 21:50, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. It can be done manually. I'll do as much as I can. Thank you for trying, though. Dtol (talk) 12:11, January 21, 2018 (UTC)

Re:Alleged false claims of having rejected adminship

I disagree - it is completely relevant. It is disingenuous to claim to have been offered adminship when the person offering it isn't even in a position to grant it. Furthermore, I've trawled through your talk page and found no instances of anyone offering adminship - users have only offered a nomination for adminship.

Disagree if you wish, but it is dishonest to claim that you have been offered adminship when, at best, you have been offered a nomination for adminship. It doesn't even make sense to claim to have been offered adminship by other users when they have no ability to grant it. I believe you are aware of this as well. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 00:54, January 15, 2018 (UTC)


No, you should not. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:38, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to take it as case-by-case measure. For pages likes Angels and Demons, we need to save space to reduce whatever Bytes we can. For small pages, like under 50k Bytes, it's okay to have direct links. I just want more users to be able to access all pages of the wiki without over-working older computers, and taking a minimalist approach was how we've been getting by. I'm considering other options, like what was done with the Castiel and Dean pages, but I'm not sure how that work given the pages size, order, and complexity. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:48, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

That would be perfect. If anyone has a problem with it, refer them to this section. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:55, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Sure. It'd be a lot easier than manual. Dtol (talk) 19:56, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Understandable. I appreciate the work your doing and will do. Thank you. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:08, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:55, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Hey i see that you have a bot and is about to use it and i was wondering if you maybe could use it to replace the "<references/>" and "<references />" (with a space betwen the S and the /) on the wiki pages with "{{reflist}}" is like the same thing as replacing the "<small></small>" with "{{c|}}", i don't have a bot, otherwise i would do it myself. Doctor49 (talk) 00:52, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

You did it? Apparently bot's editions don't appear in the wiki activity, so i don't know :p Doctor49 (talk) 00:11, January 18, 2018 (UTC)

Ok Doctor49 (talk) 00:31, January 18, 2018 (UTC)


The debate on what goes on the monster page has been reopened. Your opinion on the issue would be welcome. you can find the link here Talk:Monster#Monsters_omitted_part_2 Thank you--ThomasNealy (talk) 22:58, January 19, 2018 (UTC)

As one of the participants I thought you would like to know that Caleb has posted a Notice of Intent to close the discussion. He has also provided an idea on a compromise since he could see no clear resolution from the debate. Your opinion would be welcome on the matter. Thank You. --ThomasNealy (talk) 18:10, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

Villains category

I didn't know that. thank you for telling me. If that is the case, could you please handle the Season 4 Villains Category then please? Hito7187199 (talk) 01:08, January 25, 2018 (UTC)

If the anon would actually give an edit summary, like you did, it could have been resolved more quickly. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:41, January 27, 2018 (UTC)


I would agree except the rest of the spell is in Latin. And that word has no meaning in any language that I could find. It seems to just be a random gibberish that was added to the spell, either that or as I had on there a typo on the script. --ThomasNealy (talk) 12:55, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

Yea that makes more sense, the script had it as one word. So typo on their part. still badly written latin though. they did a better job of it in the earlier seasons. --ThomasNealy (talk) 13:14, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

From Super wiki. So it could have been an error on their part as well. I thought it was his error at first too, so i went looking. --ThomasNealy (talk) 13:21, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea where they get it. The writers have said that it is what they use however. I checked the only other site I could find with that transcript on it and it was the same way as well. Think they would respond if I asked them where they get their transcripts?--ThomasNealy (talk) 13:32, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

I sent an email to the admin over there, now I just need to wait to see if they respond or not. I asked if they had a source for them and if they did if they would share it with me. I would like to find an official source for them as well. There used to be a site that archived tv scripts but I have not been able to find it in long time.--ThomasNealy (talk) 13:44, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

I got a response from the admin over there. seems they use the closed captioning from the aired episode. explains the error though the closed caption is some time a little off.--ThomasNealy (talk) 23:02, January 31, 2018 (UTC)


It's fine. You're doing what you can. Thank you. Dtol (talk) 18:43, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

check out the template that we have now but look at the last revision in 2011. is that what it should be? it seems that it was before the of site like was added. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:26, February 7, 2018 (UTC)

so the code to paste would be

|image =
|episode =
|writer =
|director =
|airdate =
|number =

Is that right? --ThomasNealy (talk) 23:40, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Assuming my replacement template gets approved, yes. It will work like any other template.

Orion (T-B-C) 23:41, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Post a topic in the admin board for it. I don't see any issue with using it as it is less code and does not really on an outside side for part of it. and the templates are something that is going to be getting an overhaul soon. ( i hope) Thanks for doing this as well. --ThomasNealy (talk) 23:48, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is one issue. I don't know why the text is in bold, and I can't seem to get rid of it. I suppose it's something we'll have to live with, if it goes through.

Orion (T-B-C) 23:50, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

did you try font-size:110% after style? that's what it uses now. also is there a way to get the cell lines?--ThomasNealy (talk) 23:58, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

It's not about font size, but I'll try.

Get rid of the lines, you mean? I think so.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:00, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Yea the grid lines. Take a look at my sandbox. it is a trial with season 1. it does not seem to play well once more then one are stacked. is there a way to separate the top header portion from the rest of it? --ThomasNealy (talk) 00:03, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm way out of my depth here. For now I'll stick with my (seemingly) stable version.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:06, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

I think I figured out how to improve it further, but I'll only try it tomorrow. I'm tired.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:09, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Trial by fire? I can't help but wonder what change wikia made that is conflicting with it. that template is old after all. the last change was 2 years ago. unless it was the code host site that made a change, that could be it too. This may be stupid but can a template be made inside a template?--ThomasNealy (talk) 00:12, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, this whole experience has been trial by fire. This requires knowledge I don't have, so I'm forced to apply something else to get it done. I assume it was the host that changed. It's always a bad idea to rely on code from hosts.

Templates can be called from inside templates, but that's bad practice, as it increases load times and can create incompatibilities. Think of it like having a conference call, but instead of just having everyone on at the same time, each person has to call every other person before the conversation can move.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:17, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the outside site. I'm not sure why it was started to begin with. the main page has it too. Maybe it is time to get rid of the off site code. --ThomasNealy (talk) 00:22, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Re:Replacement template for the Season template

Given that none of the key features of the template is being changed, I would actually say that you should be bold and make the changes (once you fix the bold text issue perhaps.) I don't think an explicit consensus needs to be obtained for this either, since this is essentially just a bug fix. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 00:43, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

I should add, though, that since you seem to be getting useful feedback in the currently open discussion, there's no harm in letting it continue. Calebchiam Talk 00:55, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Isis - added information

Hi, Orion! First of all, Ganesh was seen with the hands on Isis legs in a romantic way, meaning they were flirting. And when Baldur said "keep your hands off the local virgins" Ganesh quickly got the hands off her. So, there was no reason for you have undone my added information about Isis, since they are based on show. So, 1- Yes, it's implied she was virgin, 2- She and Ganesha were affiliated since they were eyeing each other up on show. Thx

Roby missouri (talk) 19:07, February 9, 2018 (UTC)Roby Missouri

Could use your opinion on something

I am working on a guide for the templates to help users use them better. Can you look at it and give your opinion on it as it is right now. User:ThomasNealy/sandbox/Template Guide it still is very much a work in progress. I hope to have all the ones that an editor would use included by type when it is done.--ThomasNealy (talk) 22:20, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

That stuff is supposed to be on the template pages themselves.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:35, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Except no one knows to go there. And the templates can be confusing if you don't read the code or don't know how. I'm hoping we can point new users to the page so they know first what templates we have and second how to use them. Some of the templates just say this is a very complicated template. others are blank with no examples at all. Like the c template that we started to use. its not clear what it is for. the alternative is redoing the templates to have a guide on them and then pointing the user to the category. Half the actor pages have no info box because the users don't know how. our templates are a mess, I don't think much maintenance has been done on them in a long time. --ThomasNealy (talk) 00:43, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

You could also just add "t-v-e" to each template, like they do on Wikipedia.

As for template maintenance, don't look at me.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:46, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

What is "t-v-e"? --ThomasNealy (talk) 00:49, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, it stands for "Template-View-Edit". I think the first one links directly to the template, the second is for documentation, and the third is for editing it directly.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:51, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

I went over to wiki and tried to find it but I'm not sure what I'm looking for. I've never edited on wikipedia before. --ThomasNealy (talk) 00:55, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

It's actually V-T-E; View-Talk-Edit. View opens the template page, talk opens its talk page, edit starts an edit.

Orion (T-B-C) 00:57, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Yea sorry I'm lost, found a template over there but did not see what you were talking about. Never mind man don't waste your time. --ThomasNealy (talk) 01:05, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, my point is, you can implement something like that. Tuck it away on the corner of a template, problem solved.

Orion (T-B-C) 01:15, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Shapeshifting Page

Tricksters was in the page twice and removed 1 of them you would have seen that if you would have read it instead of undoing it. Spnfan079 (talk) 21:52, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me for trusting your edit summary ("Added God") and Wikia's changes. -- Orion (T-B-C) 21:56, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
well I learned from my mistakes sorry.  Spnfan079 (talk) 21:59, February 14, 2018 (UTC)


Hey Orion, can we meet at chat? You wrote me a while ago and I was absent for a while. SeraphLucifer (talk) 12:02, February 20, 2018 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I only have a handful of minutes. EDIT: We'll have to postpone.

Orion (T-B-C) 12:04, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

Bot Request

Hi could your bot replace words only inside info boxes? --ThomasNealy (talk) 09:18, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Sure can.

Orion (T-B-C) 09:43, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. in the infoboxes under the occupation label. Could you replace

  • Sheriff with [[Law_Enforcers#Sheriff|Sheriff]]
  • Deputy with [[Law_Enforcers#Deputy_Sheriff|Deputy]]
  • Police Detective with [[Law_Enforcers#Detectives|Police Detective]]
  • Detective with [[Law_Enforcers#Detectives|Detective]]
  • FBI Agent with [[Law_Enforcers#Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation_.28FBI.29|FBI Agent]]
  • Deputy Director of the FBI with [[Law_Enforcers#Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation_.28FBI.29|Deputy Director of the FBI]]
  • Security Detail for POTUS with [[Law_Enforcers#US_Secret_Service|Security Detail for POTUS]]

Is this possible? If it is not it is ok I can do it by hand. Thanks --ThomasNealy (talk) 09:58, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

It's possible. Just to be clear: you're saying that none of the words I need to replace are links, correct? If so, give me a few minutes and I'll get the bot started.

Orion (T-B-C) 10:05, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know no they are not links. The only one that is is Jody since she was my test page to see if it would work. I am trying to link to an orphaned page. And so since I did it for her I want to make it uniform. (I'm Using my phone right now so sorry for any typos.i hate posting with this)ThomasNealy (talk) 10:12, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

I'll need to make two passes because of Detective and Police Detective. I made a list of pages from the Characters category, since I assume that's where the replacement is needed.

Orion (T-B-C) 10:31, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

May need to make more passes. Apparently some articles use "Deputy Sheriff" instead of just "Deputy", so the bot gets confused and replaces those two as individual words.

Orion (T-B-C) 10:35, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

The ones it did are perfect. Sorry for the extra work. ThomasNealy (talk) 10:40, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Is there like a "Law Enforcement" category I could get these articles from? It'd certainly shorten the time I have to spend on this.

Orion (T-B-C) 11:36, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you saw that.

Law Enforcers

Category:Law Enforcement

ThomasNealy (talk) 11:48, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

That should be everybody. I saved these settings in case we need to add other links to template parameters and figured out some improvements along the way.

Orion (T-B-C) 12:07, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

I just got home and am ready for bed. Thanks for doing it , you saved me a lot of edits. ThomasNealy (talk) 12:25, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Good day, Orion. I saw you deleted my edit in the article Archangels Blade which specified the type of knife it was. The information about it being a Jagdkommando Tri-dagger was accurate, and I can give you the source if you need, even thought it can be easily checked on Google. So, why it was deleted?

the universe

If do you want to start a talk topic about it? if he does it again I will have to lock the page for edit waring. Which would then need a talk topic for it any way.--ThomasNealy (talk) 23:49, February 28, 2018 (UTC)


I think it was removed because two users, Spnfan079 and ThomasNeely didn't see how Jack's grace could be extracted, or something like that. Personally, it was mentioned in the show as a potential weakness, so I think it should be left on there. There was nothing to say that it couldn't be done on Jack, from what I remember. Dtol (talk) 12:19, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

I started a talk topic on it my response is there. I had a reason for supporting the removal. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:35, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.