Supernatural Wiki
Supernatural Wiki
Tag: rte-source
(→‎Re:NavBox Template: new section)
Tag: sourceedit
Line 181: Line 181:
 
Understood. And also, I finished it a couple days ago, but have a look [[User:Angry Hearts/Sandbox|here]]. I just have to figure out how to align the season titles names to match up with the "Episodes" unless you think it's fine. The problem with the template is, we'd have to put "Supernatural: (Season Number)" in order for it to match up.
 
Understood. And also, I finished it a couple days ago, but have a look [[User:Angry Hearts/Sandbox|here]]. I just have to figure out how to align the season titles names to match up with the "Episodes" unless you think it's fine. The problem with the template is, we'd have to put "Supernatural: (Season Number)" in order for it to match up.
 
{{w:User:Angry_Hearts/Signature}}02:32,3/2/2017
 
{{w:User:Angry_Hearts/Signature}}02:32,3/2/2017
  +
  +
== Re:NavBox Template ==
  +
  +
It looks good though the colour scheme is a bit garish at times.
  +
  +
I assume this navigation box template is meant to be placed at the bottom of each episode article? If so, I'd recommend splitting them up into seasons, i.e. 1 navigation box template for each season. This keeps the episode article from being too cluttered by the navigation box, and makes sense since users are more likely to only want to browse episodes within a single season. [[User:Calebchiam|Calebchiam]] [[User talk:Calebchiam|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 04:01, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:01, 2 March 2017

  • Size of the page: 28,943 bytes. Archive at 50,000 bytes!
 
 
 

Archive One

Archive Two

This is not the place to report issues on the wiki. Admin Noticeboard is: Here

Post Messages Below This.

Hey i tried to update something and i couldnt figure out how to do it, check my latest contribution. Thanks! Austin031593 (talk) 07:47, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

Admins

If we are going to discuss that topic, we should gather all 5 admins and talk. SeraphLucifer (talk) 13:45, February 16, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

What he did this time?[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:20, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

You know, lets skip this part. Just ban him, because this is a rerun and is always a rerun with him. He doesn't deserve more chances. But wait for the consensus of the other admins first. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and now he is up to the same crap.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 22:12, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Just he does more bad than good. Like yeah, I saw the bit about Archangels. Yeah it's very likely they predate even the Leviathans. But what if they were then stated to be first. Back tracking editing.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 22:29, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need all the admins to come together and discuss this. We're not a cabal after all. If one or two established users (whether admins or not) see serious problems with a certain user's behaviour, by all means, they should go ahead and create the forum. Admins are allowed to dissent from each other, so I don't really see the point of gathering the admins together honestly. Calebchiam Talk 14:38, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Done Zane. Any other things you need help with? SeraphLucifer (talk) 18:09, February 17, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Unless the account is created specifically for the purpose of vandalism, infinite blocking a user will require a forum for community consensus. So yes, definitely create a forum for it. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 15:33, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed in the forum that you mentioned that you "would like to close [the] matter by February 27th". Just a heads-up that it'll be best to leave the closing to another more impartial administrator. Unless the discussion closes with full support and no disagreements, it's generally not appropriate for the discussion proposer to be closing it due to conflict-of-interest. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 05:20, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm at lunch right now. Tonight I'll make my decision rather have time to think. I rather not just be supporting/neutrality/opposing without good reasons that are known. I don't just want to be supporting without evidence. There is a bulk of it, I just want to go through it all before making my final decision.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 19:06, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

ImperiexSeed

I haven't been monitoring his edits. All I remember is that he hated Sam and he feels like the administrators are bullying him. Regardless, I will go with whatever you say. Ban him. Kajune (talk) 19:20, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Forum

Hey,Zane. Got a question. Is it alright to switch from support to neutral? Because I think I jumped the gun a bit in my support for the ban,and wanted to switch to being neutral. Gabriel456 (talk) 11:35, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Seeking Admin here

I contacted Caleb about getting the rank of Admin and what I have to do to get that status. I hold it on the Gears of War Wiki, but I have no idea how that happened as I got a message one day saying I was an Admin. I suspect it was due to the number of edits I made after Gears of War 3 amongst other times but I really don't know. If I need support from other Admins to get that status, would I have your support???--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:31, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

What's an RFA??? And thanks. I think its possible for me to get the support I need if it comes down to that. As I said to Caleb, I only do constructive edits and seem fairly well liked. I know you like me and FTWinchester certainly seemed to but I haven't heard from them in a long time. I'm not sure how much support I'd need though and I'm not sure of who all the other Admins on here are.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:35, February 18, 2017 (UTC)--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:35, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Response to newest post: Thanks, I really appreciate that. Do you think I could get that kind of support though??? I might deserve it, but I can't be sure of how many people would support me. Your really the Admin I interact with and I don't know any of the others as well as I do you.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:37, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

I think Seraph would likely support me. He recently had a problem with my Molecular Combustion page seeing it as another form of Smiting but once I explained my reasoning, he conceded. I think he even praised me but I can't be sure. You can see that in the discussion page for the Molecular Combustion page if you want a look. I think I'll contact Seraph in case this happens, see if he'd support me when the time comes too.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:51, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

I guess you can begin that RFA thing from what Caleb said on my talk page. I contacted Seraph but haven't heard back yet. Since Caleb seems to have given the go ahead, might as well start the process.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 03:40, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks man. Feel free to give me whatever advice or criticism you feel necessary.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 16:07, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

True, but I also mean in general buddy. I did my response on that RfA thing btw.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 16:26, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

It won't be. And I'd only block someone who repeatedly vandalizes and obviously doesn't learn their lesson.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 16:46, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

If I get Admin then I'll do the exact same thing.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:08, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'll probably need an outline of the duties before I can figure out what I do and don't know how to do. At the moment, I just returned from a short vacation and don't have time at the moment but I'll figure it out later tonight or tomorrow. But I do agree on needing a mentor and would welcome one.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 20:37, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

The first couple you mentioned, I know nothing about that and would have to learn for sure. The one about blocking and reverting seems fairly obvious to me and sounds like what I do anyway with a higher level of control over it. The last part about where you and Seraph collab I could definitely work with you on that if you give me instructions.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 20:55, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Well I'm too busy tonight to figure it out but I'll definitely go over it tomorrow.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 22:04, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

SPN fan

I don't know if I've asked this yet, but how long have you been a fan of Supernatural? Kajune (talk) 21:54, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

On presenting advice

Hey. Thanks for attempting to provide evidence in the Imperiex perma-ban discussion. Just a word of advice on how you can present your case better if you linked to specific incidents rather than pages like contribution history and your talkpage, and leaving readers to guess which incidents you're referring to. Not to mention that contribution history is constantly being updated as new edits are made, so whatever you are referring to will indeed be lost to history.

I'd recommend you cite specific talkpage sections (as done here and here) or provide urls to show specific behaviours (as I once had to do here.) Hope this helps, cheers. Calebchiam Talk 02:09, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

As for the closing date of the discussion, I generally find it's a bit premature to declare a closing date right off the bat. Usually, I'll let the discussion run for at least a week (to get as much user input as possible) and once the discussion has died down, I'll either close it (if there's sufficient community input) or leave a notice of intent that I'll be closing it within the next few days. Calebchiam Talk 02:11, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
Something like this [url] will do the trick for external links / generic urls. And you already know how to link to Wiki pages. Or you can just see the above message for how I did it. Let me know if you still need help. Calebchiam Talk 02:19, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Re:RfA duration

Hey, as stated on Supernatural Wiki:Requests for adminship: "Requests will be held for two weeks before a final decision is made." Though, as in some of the previous RfAs, the duration is extended by a week to allow for more community input.

By the way, I've fixed the RfA table here. If you have difficulty figuring out how to edit Wiki markup, it's best to refer to a guide or simply check out the page history to see how it was done previously. As long as you're using the Source Editor, this should make things easier. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 17:06, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Ban Forum

This does not seem to be going well my friend given Caleb's recent comments. If we can't pull something off that guy will remain a user on this site.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 04:16, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

RFA

I saw that WG18, has been nominated for adminship. I'll involve in the topic ASAP. Kinda busy atm. SeraphLucifer (talk) 20:36, February 20, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

My position on Imperiex's ban

Hi. You seem to have misunderstood many of my inputs to the Imperiex ban thread. After going over my previous statements, I can see how they might be misinterpreted as support for keeping Imperiex if one chose to look at them through that lens, so I'll simply clarify that this is not my intent. I am supportive of his ban, but I am saying the evidence of it has been presented poorly. I hope that makes it sufficiently clear.

Allow me to clarify some statements that may have caused the confusion in the first place. I will post this on your talkpage because I think it's sufficiently clear on the forum, but you have had some issues with it. This is not your fault, and perhaps it was my fault for not being explicit enough.

  • "Right now, there's a lot of 'he said, she said' and general claims about his bad behaviour, as well as some users taking our established users' support as sufficient proof that ImperiexSeed should be banned. This is not sufficient, and the burden of proof lies on those supporting this proposal to provide the evidence that ImperiexSeed's behaviour has been a long-standing problem in this community." - when I say that this is not sufficient, understand that I don't mean to say that the proposal will not pass. I mean that from a logical standpoint, providing blind support based on secondhand opinion is not logically rigorous. "sufficient" is a term used in philosophy to describe whether a set of conditions are together adequate for reaching a certain conclusion.
  • "Again, I have no interest in keeping Imperiex around unless he's contributing usefully to the Wiki. And this is not me coming to his defense either, I've seen his behaviour plenty and can understand why many users would want him to be permanently banned. But I've had no choice but to play the Devil's Advocate here because the evidence being presented is shoddy and the case for him to be permanently banned is not being made. Many seem to be forgetting that the Wiki is not a democracy where votes are tallied and the majority vote decides the outcome. The Wiki operates on consensus and the strength of arguments counts for more than the number of voters on either side. Voting Support or Oppose literally means next to nothing unless you provide a justification for that stance. I think many users could do to keep that in mind." - as stated here, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate. A Devil's Advocate is "a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments". No one here supports Imperiex which is why they will not rebut you, and neither do I support him. The reason why I pointed out the flaws of your argument is so that you may improve upon it and, in so doing, you will be raising the quality of discourse of the Wiki. If you made a poor argument, and no one called you out on it, it would implicitly seem like the entire Wiki community is okay with pieces of poor reasoning. So do not misunderstand my critique of your argument as an opposition to the proposal in the first place. The rest is me simply attempting to remind the community that we should hold our discussions to a higher standard and provide a justification for our stance rather than simply the stance itself.
  • "The thing is, you have to be impartial. You may dislike his attitude, behaviour, and generally his editing. But this is not sufficient grounds for a permanent ban. Universal dislike is not sufficient. If he's making small changes here and there that piss others off, then I'm sorry, but we'll have to put up with it. Imperiex is a problematic and complicated user, but he's not a vandal or a troll, and within his contribution history, he has made some genuinely good edits to the Wiki (when he's not possessed with his hatred for Sam and whatnot.) If your case is that he really is not changing his ways from what earned him a 1-year block in the first place, then by all means, provide the evidence. Shoddy evidence is still shoddy evidence - no matter how you slice it." - I can see how this might potentially seem like I'm throwing my support for Imperiex. But if you read closely, you'll realise that I'm first of all, emphasising impartiality. As I later stated, this means "[we] must do their best to be impartial and see each side of the case on its own merits, and this is what I've been trying to do here, in pointing out that we can do better in proving to all users old and new (not just ourselves who are very acquainted with Imperiex's behaviour) that there are just grounds for permanently banning him." Even though WG18, and you, and me all understand the problems with Imperiex's behaviour, we should not treat this as implicit knowledge, but we should make it explicit (i.e. provide clear evidence) so that any disinterested user who comes by can see exactly what we are talking about. Because without evidence, it sounds like a venting session, and "Universal dislike is no sufficient [for banning him]." When I point out that Imperiex has made some decent edits, I am not saying that he deserves another chance. I am trying to provoke WG18 into realising that what had been said in the thread thus far was not adequate, and we can go further to systematically prove that he is a menace to the Wiki. This is the reason for my continual reminder to provide the evidence, because if you were a person with absolutely no interactions with Imperiex, you would not be convinced by the thread alone that he's such a bad guy. You would want to see the evidence for yourself - and that's what I'm trying to get users to provide.

I hope that clears it up, and that you can see we are on common ground here. I suspect that you took my critique of your evidence the wrong way and immediately assumed that I (for some reason) wanted Imperiex to stay on the Wiki. Far from it, I am happy for him to be gone. But if I was an administrator from another Wiki with no Imperiex and I saw this thread, I would not be personally convinced due to the glaring lack of evidence. Thus, despite personally being in support of his permanent ban, I am giving you a hard time on the evidence here.

This disagreement is quite silly and over a misunderstanding (which makes it particularly infuriating), but I hope you'll be better able to see where I am coming from and realise that resolution is possible. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:33, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the case to permanently ban Imperiex has plenty of evidence going for it and if I were the thread proposer, I would have systematically laid out his edit history, paranoia-induced conflicts with specific users, block history, abuse of tools over the many years on the Wiki to prove my case. In my mind, at least, it would have been a straightforward case to argue for. However, you are the thread proposer and therefore I thought it best if you did it on your own accord. Unfortunately, it seems to have gone over your head somewhat and you in fact believe that I want Imperiex around, which is nuts honestly. Calebchiam Talk 04:39, February 22, 2017 (UTC)
"anyone can scan Seeds entire edit history" - the flaw in this thinking is that firstly, not everyone would due to the time it would take, as shown from this discussion itself. And secondly, even if they did, Imperiex has 13,000 edits - they will find all sorts of edits: good, bad, neutral. How can you ensure that they see exactly you are referring to unless you highlight it explicitly yourself? The onus is on you to do the heavy lifting for them, so that the quality of the discourse is raised and no one can dispute that this proposal is properly justified. And while testimony is good, it is not sufficient because what if it's simply a bunch of users who dislike him? I know this is your first 'trial' here, so to speak, but I've seen my fair share of ban/desysop discussions. If this was on a Wiki with users more experienced with policies or on Wikipedia itself, it would not have passed unless some of the supporters specifically listed evidence.
Yes, there was a misunderstanding here which could have been avoided. Not to be presumptuous, but you are still relatively new to this Wiki thing. It is good to remember that there is a human being behind each user account, and to seek first to clarify and understand what a user is trying to get at, rather than rebut them instinctively. I'm not sure which stage of life you are at (student, college, or working) but this is a sound practice for life itself and will save yourself much heartache. I hope you can go back and read the discussion and realise that my stance throughout its course has been consistent, and the only thing that has changed here is your interpretation of it. Many users will not have grasped the intricacies of what took place here, but for the Wiki's sake, I hope this will be a learning experience. I know you have good intentions for the Wiki, but you will have more cases where you have to do conflict resolution in the future, and part of that means tempering your sense of justice/passion (which as you honestly admitted, got the better of you at some points) so that you can understand the truth of both sides. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 03:38, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

A little note from me

Hey Zane, I just want you to know that you are one the best things this Wiki ever had. You really work hard and care about your admin job. You took care of every single topic and achieved great things. I really appreciate you. Keep doing as you are always doing. Thank you for everything. SeraphLucifer (talk) 19:08, February 22, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Re:Archive

Meh, I think it is fine currently. SeraphLucifer (talk) 20:14, February 22, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Time Travel

I just got a strange idea, but what do you think about creating a page dedicated to listing all the time travel occurrences on the show? Kajune (talk) 00:52, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Permaban of IS

Well, I suppose the ban was passed after all. I can't say I'm sorry I missed the drama, too. I've been dealing with the guy for several years. I'm happy though that consensus was passed by the community's more recently active members. FTWinchester (talk) 01:12, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

RE:"Family Feud" on Lucifer's Cage

Thanks for the clarification I must have overlooked it. Nethertheless, WarGrowlmon18 should have pointed that out when he later undid my edit as I did ask for his reasoning for the deletion of it.70.93.90.147 05:38, February 24, 2017 (UTC)

GIFs

Thank you for telling me, I didn't know. Not gonna happen anymore! Touchinos (talk) 16:13, February 24, 2017 (UTC) Touchinos

Oh no no it's alright you weren't being rude at all! :) Touchinos (talk) 16:22, February 24, 2017 (UTC) Touchinos

Wait, hold up, I can't put personal GIFs on my... own profile? What? That's lame. Touchinos (talk) 15:42, February 25, 2017 (UTC) Touchinos

But the ones I used were Supernatural related and not offensive in any way.. aight you know what? Fine I guess. Touchinos (talk) 15:50, February 25, 2017 (UTC) Touchinos

A Couple Questions (and suggestions)

Hello, Zane, I'm new here, but I would love to just introduce myself and hope to be a great contributor to the wiki. I have a couple questions regarding the wiki. 

  • How come you guys don't have an Nav template for every episode, placed on every page so people can navigate it better? If you need one, could I create it? I'm pretty good at this kind of stuff
    • The same question applies to the main characters. 
  • Have you guys tried opening the Discussions modules, or the newer version of the Forums yet?
  • Should it be "10th"," tenth", or "10th" when it comes to formatting pages? 
  • I uh, notice you guys have a strict image policy. Would it be okay if I upload one for the usage of my signature? My universal Wikia wise one won't work, so I have to create it here.
  • Is there a reason why you guys don't use the message wall system? In my experience, I find them easier to manage. Especially since there are IP users still here. (and you can disable them if you want to stop the constant speculation)
  • The Community Messages should be updated. I just suggest to place a countdown per episode. And for yours and Seraph's usernames, you can shorten the hyperlinks by adding the | symbol.
    • Same goes for homepage. 
  • You guys should make a page that lists all the admins, inactive or not. It took me a while to find one of you guys lol. And combine the policies pages.

Thanks!

Conniverse background.png
WallUserContribs

05:00,2/26/201704:11,2/26/2017

Okay thanks! As for the Nav box for the episodes and characters, could you link me to it? I could refreshen them. 

Conniverse background.png
WallUserContribs

01:01,2/27/2017

Thanks. I've got a draft I'll be working on in a sandbox all week until I finish it.

Conniverse background.png
WallUserContribs

05:51,2/27/2017

Chat

Heya Zane, can we meet at chat? SeraphLucifer (talk) 19:54, February 27, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Weaknesses

Do you think that we should remove First Blade from Archangels, Leviathan pages etc.? We don't really have a confirmation. I think in every characters weaknesses section, there are lots of unnecessary things. SeraphLucifer (talk) 20:57, February 27, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Re: Orphaned pages

Hi! Thanks for looking the problem up. Orphaned pages are the exact opposite of Dead-end pages. Whereas the latter has no links to other pages, orphaned pages have no links from other pages. This means unless a reader knows specifically what to look for and types it in the search bar, there is no way a casual reader would stumble into an orphan page. For example, Cemetery Zombies was an orphaned page. It has outgoing links to other pages, but none from other pages. What we could do is to identify the episode where they feature in and in the episode synopsis/summary, create a link directing to Cemetery Zombies (this was not possible because the episode synopsis linked to the main Zombie article). An alternative I did was to link Cemetery Zombies from the main Zombie article. FTWinchester (talk) 22:30, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it takes a while to update. Thanks, Zane. I would stay longer but I gotta do graveyard shift tonight. FTWinchester (talk) 22:43, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Picture

Hey Zane, I created a picture for thePrimordial Entities page. I don't know if it's good or not. Kajune (talk) 23:28, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Templates (and more)

Understood. And also, I finished it a couple days ago, but have a look here. I just have to figure out how to align the season titles names to match up with the "Episodes" unless you think it's fine. The problem with the template is, we'd have to put "Supernatural: (Season Number)" in order for it to match up.

Conniverse background.png
WallUserContribs

02:32,3/2/2017

Re:NavBox Template

It looks good though the colour scheme is a bit garish at times.

I assume this navigation box template is meant to be placed at the bottom of each episode article? If so, I'd recommend splitting them up into seasons, i.e. 1 navigation box template for each season. This keeps the episode article from being too cluttered by the navigation box, and makes sense since users are more likely to only want to browse episodes within a single season. Calebchiam Talk 04:01, March 2, 2017 (UTC)