Supernatural Wiki


aka Caleb Chiam

583 Edits since joining this wiki
May 10, 2009
  • I live in Singapore
  • I was born on June 8
  • I am Male

Hi, welcome to Supernatural Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the 66 Seals page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Kyle Nin (Talk) 08:10, 10 May 2009


When will this lockdown end; what is the purpose of this procedure?

Wikicleaner64 Oct 16th 2009


Thank you for your comment on my Talk page.

wikicleaner64 Oct 16th 2009

Hey Edit

It has come to my attention that the User (Mirula) has been posting information that is either inaccurate or not relevant to this show. Please monitor his edits and make sure he understands that this Wiki is very factual and very accurate; only accurate information will be helpful to this Wiki's community.


Anderson Writer (November 9th 2009)

Never mind I have taken care of it.

Hi Edit

It has never been confirmed that Zachariah is an archangel. Please put in parentheses "unconfirmed" if the content is unconfirmed.


Anderson Writer (November 10th 2009)

Hi Edit

I apologize for my comment. I just had a misunderstanding that's all, no big.


Anderson writer (November 10th 2009)

Thanks Edit

Thanks for your comment on the Seraphim (Talk page)

Anderson Writer (November 12th 2009)

Admin Board Edit

How do I get on the admin board? What are the requirements to join the admin board? Please leave a message on my Talk page with an answer.


Anderson Writer (November 16th 2009)

Admin Edit

Thanks I'll try it. So how do I start; how do I get admin rights?


Anderson Writer (November 18th 2009)

Thank You Edit

I appreciate your consistent feedback. Please talk with the user Smallville944 about his inaccurate and inconsistent edits; for example he posted that Alastair and Lilith are archdemons. As far as I know that statement is wrong.

Anderson Writer 16:06, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Save Gabriel campaign needs help Edit

I was wondering if it's possible to post a link to Save Gabriel online petition somewhere on the site.
Its purpose is to bring Gabriel back to Supernatural, and it would be great help if this link was somewhere on a site with as much traffic as Supernatural Wiki. I hope it's not too much inconvenience.


Since you are capable of deleting articles, I guess you have the power of an admin., or something similar to that (I apologize for not knowing where to see a user's status). I therefore have a small request; edit the menu to the right so that the fifth season is included. I would also recomment to have a "regular/main characters" there, as well. If you have the power to change it, it should be written below the menu "Edit this menu". If you don't, could you please redirect me to someone who is can do it and who will most likely answer my request, be it rejection or acceptation?

Thank you for your attention.

Penamesolen 05:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

You can find administrators using Special:Listusers (although most of them have gone inactive). Anyway, I have made some changes to the sidebar as request, do let me know if you want any further changes to be made. Thanks! Calebchiam Talk 05:59, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Um, I take it as that you reply to each other on each talk page, right? I'm not familiar with it (the other wiki have us talk to each other at the talk page where the topic started), so I just have to confirm it.

Thank you. I believe the menu should have directions such as those, especially because the characters you included are regulars and important for the plot. I could also recommend another directing to the main races (Demons, Angels, Humans[?], more[?]) and possibly recurring devices, such as the Impala, Ruby's knife, the Colt, the holy oil and the Lower Key of Solomon or whatever. Out from the two other wikis I work on, it seems like they put in the basic pages on the menu; "these are articles about subjects you should know about at the end of the series/should know about to follow the series" or something.

Again, it is simply from other wikis, and as such I'm not sure if anyone would want to follow it up here, but it is only suggestions. Since we are close to the end now (or at least the end of the Apocalypse Arc), I wanted to try doing something for the wiki, since I think it is a good show.

Penamesolen 17:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

New main page and skin Edit

Hi, could you please check here? Thanks! --Darth Stefan (Talk) 14:52, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You For Sysopping! Edit

First of all, I'd like to thank you for the trust you have placed in me by making me an Admin.

I shall try my best to breathe life into this Wiki again. It has been neglected for far too long and as such, putting it back on the rails will be one hell of a job. Even then, I shall take on the mantle and contribute heart and soul to the Wiki, making it a far better one than it is today. For that, I will have to bank on the co-operation of other editors and collaborate with them on projects. This Wiki also needs some more editors: the traffic is far too sluggish. For that we will have to advertise the Wiki more. If you could show me the ropes to advertise a Wiki, then I'll be very much grateful to you.

That's all for now. Once again, thank you (and Kyle) for your trust in me. Hallichester... 13:46, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Sysops Edit

Hi there! It's me again. As you can see, the Wiki has been given a whole new look. I did it together with User:Thesilentpoethosea, who designed it all. As such, I have approached you for a promotion for him. I know I have just been promoted to Sysop myself and asking for a promotion for someone else may seem a little rushed but he's really good at Wiki stuff and is ready to take on the responsibility for this Wiki.

So, if you could promote him to Admin as well, then the two of us can really give this Wiki a real kick-off. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance! -- Admin // Hallichester 18:16, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hello; Admin requirements Edit

Hey there!! I hope you enjoyed Episode 13 as much as I did. Firstly, I currently work online on other wikis concerning the tv series Supernatural. Secondly, is it currently possible for me to become an Admin here, and if so is there room on the Admin board and how should i approach doing so?

About me, I have seen every Supernatural episode to date, I have studied and constructed and created many pages on other wikis about the respective. I don't know about others here, but when it comes to Canon and accuracy about Supernatural, I am very strict and straightforward. For example: If the show itself, characters or even the producers haven't said something than it isn't Canon, at least that's how I see it. Leave your post on my talkpage.

Anderson54, February 13th 2011

Deletion of a page. Edit

Hey there!! I just wanted to inform you that I just discovered while working on the Vessels page that there is another page on this wiki simply titled Vessel. Could you please delete the page titled Vessel, as it makes no sense to have two separate pages for the same thing.

Anderson54, February 14th 2011

Wiki Request Edit

Hey there!! I seriously can't wait for tonight's episode. I have been very, very busy editing this wiki; ensuring that everything is up to date and that pages read smoothly and are Canonical in all ways possible. So because of this, I think that I deserve Admin rights; can I become an Admin here now?

Anderson54, February 18th 2011

Important Me Edit

Hello there!! I am currently writing a season summary for the page titled "Season 5" seeing as Season 6 has one. In the process of adding the paragraph alignment, something I did accidentally disrupted the episode descriptions below. Can you please fix it without deleting my work?

Anderson54, February 28th 2011

Important Message. Edit

Hello there!! I am currently writing a season summary for the page titled "Season 5" seeing as Season 6 has one. In the process of adding the paragraph alignment, something I did accidentally disrupted the episode descriptions below. Can you please fix it without deleting my work?

Anderson54, February 28th 2011

Thank You!! Edit

Hey there!! Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Off hand, do you know of any pages that need immediate attention? If so, please let me know which ones. Also, when are the pages with the Deletion Boxes going to actually start getting deleted?

Anderson54, February 29th 2011


Hello, while I normally only work with fanfictions one of my "favorite shows is Supernatural. I was wondering as, since I am not an admin, and it will be my first times edits. I was wondering if I could make the page that describes the Gods? The reason I ask is that Angels, Archangels, Demon, Fairies, Alphas, Demons, and other Supernatural creatures have their own page. It justs seem odd that almost every other species, have a page and they don't. Now, while Pagan gods, and to a lesser extent "God" haven't been shown or appearred much it would be nice to give them a page at least to describle their history, and their known and specualted powers. Regardless, I won't edit or create its page until you say I can. Thank You and have a nice day.: The Twilight of Your Despair 15:03, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I have started, to make the Gods page. I am doing some more research on them. Now while, it lacks a template and a picture yet. I am working on it.: The Twilight of Your Despair 20:16, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Adminship Edit

Hi, apparently I've read somewhere that you guys are in need of sysops, due to the fact that there are times when you can't make it and vandalism goes unnoticed.. I see this place as a ripe ground for personal images & vanity pages that obviously need to be deleted, and I see myself as a tool for this job. I have experienced anti-vandal work on the Runescape Wiki, and I've also been given the rollback tool there. Basically, I'm hoping you guys can give me adminship for help on this wiki.

-Stygmata- 03:29, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Adminship Edit

I've been working here for a few months now, and I was wondering, if I could become an admin here.. Take a look at my edits, and you'll see my thoroughness. I believe I have what it takes, and I know absolutely everything about the show! -- ImperiexSeed, 10:49 PM, Octover 14th 2011

I'm already an admin on another wiki, so I know how it all works. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:10 PM, Octover 14th 2011

Should I create a page named "Amortality"? Edit

I would like to create a page that may raise some dispute, so I figured I'd consult you, even though I'm an admin myself. The word amortality means having never been born, and can't die.. To me, this seems like God and Death would be considered that, as they've always existed. Also, it's separate from immortality, in that immortals could've been born, they're just unable to die.. So, should I, or should not create this? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:10 PM, October 15th 2011

Well, I've seen it used before, but okay.. Fine, I won't create it, mainly because I don't want to got through all the effort and have it just be disputed against all the time. Besides, if you say it isn't a word, than I'd feel weird making something that's not even real. Thanks for your thoughts. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:13 AM, October 16th 2011

Would you like to browse episodes with a map? Edit

Hi, I'm a member of Wikia's Community Support Team, and we think Supernatural would be the perfect wiki to test out a new feature. I've described the whole thing over here and would love your input. Thanks! --Dopp WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 22:00, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat rights requestEdit

Hello there. I, ImperiexSeed, would like to promote somebody to admin, but unfortunately, it won't let me. Hey, so um, while I'm here could you make me a bureaucrat, please? -- ImperiexSeed, 4:53 PM, June 27th 2012

Are you frickin' kidding me?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, dude, you make me a bureaucrat right now. You obviously understand very little of the procedure. See, I, upon my own request, was turned into an admin some time ago by TheSilentPoetHoesa, and since then, I've made so many good contributions; I've started pages, helped out, assisted others, that sort of thing. In other words, I was a good little admin, you even ask other users, like General MGD 106, and they'll tell you....but then MisterRandom2 came along. At first, I loved his contributions, but then, he started preying on me, monitoring my work, and reverting every edit of mine. After like the 80th time of asking him to tone it down it a bit, he persisted. I brought it to the attention of Trrea, among other Wikia Staff. I even sent in a statement in to Special:contact, and got a reply from MerryStar, and she was with me. What, you expect me to wait 2 years before asking again? I've done so well, and I'm not waiting that long. No, I want them now. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:20 PM, June28th 2012
And no, I will not direct him to you. Make me. -- ImperiexSeed, 5:11 PM, June 28th 2012
Maybe so, but, oh nevermind. Oh, that's right. My bad, then. Alright, thanks. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:16 PM, June 29th 2012

Hello, Caleb. I got a simple request: Can I be made into an admin on the Smallville wiki? See, the only active one, Kanemekun, hasn't be doing anything for quite some time, he doesn't reply to any of my urgent messages, and another one, Markiology or something, is completely MIA. I love the show, and I'd like to made into an admin. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:54 PM, July 16th 2012

Hm, well you're a bureaucrat. I guess only Staff members possess extended powers--ones who can achieve making anyone into admins anywhere. Alright, I'll do that, but that could take a while. Speaking of bureaucrat, how am I doing? I haven't done anything provocative or anything of the sort, so now may I be made a bureaucrat? -- ImperiexSeed, 10:40 PM, July 16th 2012
Alright, here's it as I understand it: First off, the status as a bureaucrat induces even more power and intensifies the role of a user, however it doesn't give me more say or the right or privilege to boast or misuse editing prowess. Prolonged petty arguments shouldn't result in misbehavior or apprehensiveness. It imbues a user's title with potential dangerous powers if not used right, but I assure you that won't be a problem. I would like to give it a try. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:34 PM, July 16th 2012
Oh, um....promoting other users to beyond Chat moderator, but other than that I'm basically unsure. I adjust abruptly (i.e. I learn quickly), and I want to be given the chance. Please. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:46 PM, July 16th 2012
Dude, no. Stop, I know what I'm talking about. And no, it's not for the status. It basically entails like an Admin's accessories but on higher scale. Wherein one can create and assign bots, do higher promoting, and such. I'd be willing to learn what it fully entails. Don't assume you know my intent or reasoning again, well unless, of course, you know what you're talking about. :/ -- ImperiexSeed, 11:58 PM, July 16th 2012
I just told you, it involves bots creation and assignation, and overall user promotion. And you just don't like me. You're ruling is unjustly unfair. If MisterRandom2 asked, you accept giving him them. Wow. -rolls eyes- -- ImperiexSeed, 12:07 AM, July 17th 2012
So you admit, you would make MisterRandom2 one immediately if he asked. And plus, before, you said you'd grant me them if I asked later and had changed during time, and I've obviously matured. And then when I asked, you start repeatedly questioning me, antagonizing me of every detail of what being a bureaucrat means. Look, I can handle it. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:17 AM, July 17th 2012

My Signature is templated under Template:User:Original Authority/sig OriginalVisit  13:17,7/1/2012 

It's still going to be alot of code, because if i do what you said it's going to mess my signature up on alot of other wikia's OriginalVisit  15:49,7/1/2012 

and i don't want a stupid signature like you'rs

Hi, I need some assistance and explanation. Sorry to, er, say waste your time, but something rather bizarre is occurring on both the Smallville and Supernatural wikis. A lot of the time I edit, it automatically added Concepts category to pages I edit even though I didn't add the category, and it seems to be doing this to other users as well. Also, on the Supernatural wiki, when I edit it says I added categories that are already there. Could you fix this somehow? Maybe it's a malfunction. I tried contacting Smallville's only active admin, Kanamekun, but he's no where to be found, and asked MerryStar on Wikia. -- ImperiexSeed, 6:30 PM, July 19th 2012

RE: AdminshipEdit

Sure. Thanks! -- MisterRandom2 22:34, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! -- MisterRandom2 19:38, July 2, 2012 (UTC)


Greetings! You may already know, but Supernatural will be involved with Comic-Con this year. Wikia will have a physical presence at the 'Con once again, and we've created this badge:

Comiccon participantbadge

to remind users of this, and provide them with a link to Comic-Con Wiki. There, we will be updating live for the duration of the event with images, info, and exclusives for those users who are unable to be there in person. Would you be willing to allow this badge on the main page here (hopefully at the top of the right column) until the conclusion of the event? Please hit me up on my TALK PAGE and let me know either way so I can add it, or make a note that you've declined affiliation. You're welcome to add it yourself using the code above, but please drop me a note as well so I can track which wikis are participating. Thank you for your time! :)

Siggy4.png @@Wikia (profile)•(talk)•(email) 05:33, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Admin and BureaucratEdit

Hey Caleb (if it's ok to call you like that), just wondering what is needed to become an Admin or a Bureaucraft of a Wikia? (note: not wanting to become one by the moment, just simple curiosity), no hurry with the replay, i have all the time of the world Damon-Balthazar-Salvatore 22:49, July 17, 2012 (UTC)


Hi there! My name is Sonofapollo, but most call me soa. I'm here because I had a request. Me and a friend are ceating a Roleplay wiki based on the TV show, Supernatural. The wiki itself has not been made yet, but in order for us to get a good flow of users in, we were wondering if we could affiliate ourselves with you?

Sonofapollo 15:11, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Possible SEO-related adjustmentsEdit

Hi from the Wikia Community Support team. When you have a moment, I'd like to direct you to this post I put on Hallichester's talk page a few days ago, it's really meant for any of the admins here. Let me know how you guys feel about this, or if you have any questions. Thanks! BertH @Wikia (help forum | blog) 20:12, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to follow up on this message from a few months ago. We did not see any improvement in search ranking as a result of the changes that we made, I am sorry to say. However, we did learn a few things about SEO data strategies for TV series that will inform work we do in the coming year, so it was time well spent! Thanks for your willingness to help out. BertH @Wikia (help forum | blog) 21:18, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Fall TV BadgeEdit

With the fall TV season approaching, we've created this main page badge so users can have an opportunity to see what's coming up, and possibly learn about shows they might not have heard of yet:

Wikia Fall-TV-badge 300px

As always, this is a completely optional addition, but we wanted to include this wiki in our list of fall TV wikis that we're offering it to. At 300px width, it's designed to live on the top of the right main page column, but if you choose to add it you're welcome to move it anywhere you like. Please message me on my talk page to let me know if you'd like to add it (I can put it up for you, or you're welcome to add it yourself), or if you choose to decline - so that I can check this wiki off my list.
Thank you for your time!

Siggy4.png @@Wikia (profile)•(talk)•(email) 12:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Done, thanks! :)
Siggy4.png @@Wikia (profile)•(talk)•(email) 20:03, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Season 7Edit

Just wanted to let you know that I want to add a video of the Home Video Trailer for Supernatural The Complete Seventh Season on the Season 7 page, thanks!

Gcheung28 (talk) 17:23, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Understood Edit

I understand, Its just most pages I delete, are either vandalism, or inapropriate, so I got into the habit of removing the content, so they couldn't continue to deface the page. Well Okay, I'll put my argument on the talk page, but just to let you know, I'll fight to get that page removed, even if it has to be by tooth and nail. General MGD 109 (talk) 17:13, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

My response to your suggestionEdit

No thank you, I am not interested in creating an acount as editing on this wiki or others for that matter is not something I intend to do long -term. In fact, I could decide to quit at any time, so I see no point in having my own account. 05:20, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Cool new supernatural dramaEdit

Hey! Just wanted to let you know that there is a pretty interesting show on ABC coming out that members of this wiki might enjoy: 666 Park Avenue. Check the wiki out and it would be great if you could let the community know about it (it looks like it's going to be really juicy)! Also, what are your thoughts about maybe getting the two wikis affiliated with each other?

Gcheung28 (talk) 23:30, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Glad this is over Edit

I am glad we managed to reach a compromise, I've moved the information onto the Sam and Dean page, although I will admit I summerised some of it, if you wish to over look it first before we put the final nail in this coffin, go ahead. Truthfully I never thought it would go this far, I assumed that it would be a short discussion, that would quickly end when one of us convinced the other of his opion, as it has been in the past on all other pages, that I have been involved in the discusion of deletion.

I think I should also note, that this is not my first Wiki, before coming to this one, I was a major contributer on five or six others, aswell as minor contributer on about a dozen more, however I have never delt with an issue of this manitude before. I also want to thank you for explaining the third party sources bit, something I had previously misread.

Okay, I also appreicate you being frank with me, and I'll take note of your advice, but respectfully, I must state I still aim to make sure this wiki is for facts and cannon information. However I do not have your experiance, so maybe my oppion's will shift in time, we're just have to see. General MGD 109 (talk) 18:07, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Live ChatEdit

Since the chat option was already enabled here, I made up a little invite for users to jump on and chat live each week as the show unfolds. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind having it on the main page - perhaps above the "what will you be watching banner. If not, that's completely up to you, several wikis have started holding these weekly live chats with great success - and I thought it might be something that would work here as well. If you do want to have it up, here it is, or I can put it up for you if you like:

Supernatural Live-chat banner 01
Thank you for your time! :)
Siggy4.png @@Wikia (profile)•(talk)•(email) 10:55, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, I just thought I'd bring it up & see what you thought. :)
Siggy4.png @@Wikia (profile)•(talk)•(email) 18:52, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Supernatural Wiki: Head Leader, The Big Cheese, The Big Boss, The Alpha Dog, Numero Uno, etc.Edit

Are you the main man here on this Wiki? I am asking because I am anxious to make any edits to the Wiki out of the consequence I might anger the othe users. I looked at the problems you had in the past and I know some admins get reaaaaaalllllllyyy pissed off if something of theirs is tampered with and you guys made nearly everything on this Wiki. Plus I know about that Imperiex guy and he is sure to rip my head off if I make a wrong move so could you tell me what I can edit. My Singaporian hombre? Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 00:14, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

A problem with a new userEdit

Hi, Calebchiam, I am having some hostility from the new user Consus, the Erudite God. He recently opened an discussion on the Lucifer talk page, suggesting pages be restricted to registered users only, to prevent them from being tampered by Wiki Contributers with their varied opinions. I gave my own thoughts on the matter, stating the wiki has done fine with Anons being allowed to edit, so there is no reason to go to such extremes. However, Consus had previously began undoing my edits on the Michael and the Lucifer pages, repeatedly stating "You Anons better be willing to get banned before you pull a stunt like that (editing a page without permission). Trust me, Admins get pissed quick." I tried handling the situation myself by telling him that Anons are allowed to contribute to the wiki just as much as registered users, but his response was "If you register yourself you can edit the same way regardless. You guys are more trouble than you are worth. Just leave it alone fornow." Afterwards I pointed out, that his reasoning for undoing my edits is preduices towards unregistered users. Today, he posted a message on my talk page, saying, "Fine, than deal with Imperiex and let him bite your head off. You'd probably just get into a long winded argument thats ends and rage and foolish agression. Go ahead, be my guest." ImperiexSeed eventually got involved, stating "No, I am not going to bite his head off, that is a quite inconspicuous assumption. He is more than welcome to edit on the wiki, but if he makes an inaccurate edit, be sure I'll redo it (Though I question as what he meant by that based on my past experiences with him)." on Consus' talk page Although I am grateful to ImperiexSeed for coming to my defense, I feel that he won't be able do much to change Consus' mind on his ideaology as he seems to have disdain towards him for how he administrates this wiki. Recently, when I told him I rarely see devious Wiki Contributters on the Registered User discussion, he countered that he sees them on another wiki he primarly works on and later insuated that I was one as I well with these exact words, "In fact, I see on right now," which I take as a personal offense. In conclusion, I fear this will not just go away easily like some disputes would as Consus has made it clear to ImperiexSeed that he is adamant to Anons being regulated or extinguished from the wiki. Can you please speak to him, so this can be put to rest? Thank you for your time. 19:10, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Anons never tell the whole truth. He took out the segment about Micheal being Nigh Omnipotent along with Lucifer. He took out an important segment of the page based on his own beliefs on the matter. He never asked for consent first or considered the thoughts of the users who put it there. It's that arrogance which made me reprimand him and all Anons like him who believe they can do whatever they wish.Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 20:48, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, Consus never provided counter arguments as why the segments I removed from both pages should remain and undid my edits solely on the grounds that I (an unregistered user) was editing without permission from an admin. In addition, I feel he is out of line for saying he was made to reprimand me for alledgely doing whatever I wish on the wiki. My only intent was to correct what I believe was being decribed as "nigh-omnipotent" to be a overestimation of Michael and Lucifer's power respectively which neccessitated the segments' removal from both pages. For the record, I have since concided to ImperiexSeed and General MGD 109 on the matter for the sake of avoiding an argument with them, so I see that to no longer be relevant. 22:13, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

"I see that to no longer be relevant". "I believed it was an overestimation of Michael and Lucifer's power respectively". It's all about You isn't it? You let your ego get the best of you and acted without any outside consideration. I am out of line? You are the one who is out of line along with anyone who acts like you. Allegedly doing whatever you wish? You were doing what you wished, there was nothing "allegedly" about it. You have no respect for the work of others and you act without even consulting them and you give subjective reasons for doing so. You didn't add to their work you just erased some of their efforts. It's that Arrogance I find intolerable. I am glad you settled your dispute, but you'd probably do it again in the future. Plus I don' care if you add stuff without permission from an admin, just don't erase their work without persuading them it would be appropriate Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 22:22, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

I am going be the better man and I say no more on this discussion until Calebchiam has given his thoughts, as I feel you are taking this matter way too far than needed, Consus. 22:35, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Better man? There's that ego again. Besides, I didn't get the nickname of "Overkill" in high school for nothing you know. Besides I just stopped caring as you are an exasperating individual. From this point on you talk to yourslef or Caleb, but don't speak to me. Consus, the Erudite God (talk) 22:45, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Calebchiam, seeing as Consus has abandoned our dispute, would you mind still providing your verdict on it? I have become quite rattled over the whole ordeal and I would like to know if you have any advice on how I could have handled the situation better. 02:28, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

Wikis are a collaborative effort; they are built with the concept of openness, sharing, and the idea that literally anyone can edit. To pre-emptively prevent an entire portion of editors (unregistered as they may be) from editing simply because they are unregistered would go against the very ethos of a Wiki.

Consus, while it is true that it is more likely that vandalism will come from anons that registered users, that is only because vandals wouldn't bother creating an account when their only intention is to vandalise. A regular anon editor is still an editor of the Wiki, a person working with the intent of bettering the Wiki and allowing it to reach a higher standard.

I have worked on a sizeable number of Wikis, and while there are troll and vandal anons who merely come on to the Wiki to destroy the work of others, there are just as many (if not more) who are first-time editors who are simply trying to correct a mistake they've found in an article. Most (if not all) editors started out as anon editors before later making an account, myself included. While registering isn't very difficult to do, people have many reasons for choosing to stay anonymous; be it to not have the hassle of owning an account, wishing to not have a name be put to their edits, or simply human preference. This is their choice and they do have a right to do so. This is my stance on the issue, so I'll leave it to you to make of it what you will.

On a more technical perspective, vandalism from anon users isn't really a problem at all. The most they can do is blank a few articles and change a few facts, following which any user can rollback those edits before the anon editor is given a block by an admin for their disruptive behaviour. In the grander scheme of things on the Wiki, the harm anons can potentially cause is minor and temporary.

I should also point out that any edits can be made to an article without consultation of previous editors. This is the case unless there is a specific discussion and consensus in which editors came together and decided that this was how they wished the information to be presented (or something of that nature). Otherwise, all articles are open to editing, change, and improvement.

In the case of disputes with a certain legitimate edit (for obvious reasons, this does not apply to vandalism), the article is reverted to the original state before the edit was made, and a discussion must be started on the respective talkpage to discuss the legitimacy of the edit and whether the change should be kept or discarded.

Finally, let me unequivocally state that anons will never be barred from editing the Wiki. We keep a few pages continually protected (e.g. the Mainpage, or pages related to the Wiki's design) but otherwise all mainspace articles are and will always be open to all users, anon or registered. Furthermore, Wikia themselves would stop us if we attempted to lock the Wiki and only allow registered users to edit. I hope this clears things up, cheers! Calebchiam Talk 07:43, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

Unnderstood, Caleb, thank you for resolving this dispute and I hope there will be no futher bad blood between Consus and myself. 07:52, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

The archangel page...Edit

Hey, Caleb. I'm not sure if you are already aware of this, but the archangel page is locked because of "unnecessary tampering". I wasn't active on the Wiki when it was first locked so I'm unclear on some details, I've looked at the history, and there has been no incident of persistant vandalism, in which a temporary lock would be necessary. This is being debated on the article's talk page right now, but could you please unlock it and/or put in your two cents on the matter on the talk page? Thank you! Savannah Star 04:58, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

Becoming an Admin Edit

Hello there. I am SilverRain. I was wondering if I may become an Admin. Since joining, I have edited several cases of typos and vandalism, so I feel like I have a good edit history. My goal in becoming an Admin is not authority or anything of the sort, but rather to help make the Wiki a good source for Supernatural information. Since I visit often, I usually help with the above mentioned situations. Being an admin would help me perform faster edits and rollbacks of malicious edits that I occasionally see. If I am making this request in the wrong place, I apologize.

Anyways, please let me know on my talk page. I look for to hearing from you! Peace out, SilverRain (talk) 02:31, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my request! Now that I have stable internet access, I can actively participate in the wiki affairs. Though I didn't think that edit number mattered so much. I noticed that one bureaucrat had only had 77 edits, which gave me the inpression that it wasn't about the quantity of edits, but the quality of them. But again, thanks for replying! I will continue to work hard! SilverRain (talk) 00:58, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Issue with messages... Edit

Hey, Caleb. I'm sorry for bothering you, but I - no, ImperiexSeed, this anon and I - would greatly appreciate your input on an issue. The anon in question believes Imperiex tampered with one of his messages, which the latter denies. The only way things can be resolved peacefully is if we get your final thoughts on the issue. If you want more details, you can look at my talk page and ImperiexSeed's talk page. Thank you in advance. Best, Savannah Star 05:27, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

hey Samcanieldeanwinholds (talk) 19:53, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

hey i am new on this page so really don't much but a big fan of supernatural could use some help Samcanieldeanwinholds (talk) 19:59, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Affiliates Edit

Hello Caleb, My name is Robyn and I am Admin on the Charmed Wiki and Buffyverse Wiki. I am finally applying Affiliate pages to both sites, and was curious if you'd want to take part? It's a great way to cross-promote Wiki's. I figured Supernatural, BTVS and Charmed could be connected easy, since they were all WB shows at one point. This is my Buffyverse page/affiliate link, if you want to see how I have done mine. BUFFYVERSE LINK Let me know what you think. I'd love to add Supernatural to both of mine :) Take care, QueenBuffy

Hey there Caleb, I was just wondering if all the wikis we are affiliating with are supernatural-related (based on your reply to QueenBuffy)? I just find it weird, because that would mean we would have very limited affiliations. Other wikias affiliate based on genres, and I really think it is a good way to promote our wiki, especially to those who enjoy similar shows (like me). I see that we have links to other CW shows (even those not the least bit within the genre of Supernatural, not to mention not all of the CW wikis even use the links--i.e., the Nikita wiki and the Vampire Diaries wiki), so I just don't understand why we won't accept affiliation with the Buffyverse wikia, when the two shows did share a network at some point, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer very much influenced the show we love (even the producers of the show are keen to make references and cast stars from the Buffyverse). FTWinchester (talk) 03:57, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I understand that the wiki operates on a consensus, so if it's just me, then I know the case is not that strong. But yeah, personally I would want to, mainly because there are only around four to five contributors active at a time (I think it is better if we have more contributors, which I think would lead to more traffic), and the Buffyverse wiki has really excellent articles, coverage, and policies in writing, categorizing, etc. (as it's very difficult to find an article with even just a single typo!). It is also from the Buffyverse wiki that I found inspiration in improving our info banner templates. However, I do respect the fact that I do not represent the whole wiki. So, I guess I'm leaving out the decision to you, for your experience and status as an admin. I hope this case could be reopened in the future, though. FTWinchester (talk) 04:26, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

I would, but the lack of support would seem to make it moot. I know there is another contributor aside from me working on both wikis, but I can't actually recall his/her username, or if he/she is still active, since I only stumbled upon him/her while randomly browsing. Looking for support from other contirbutors in this wiki would also appear to be nigh inexistent, since we have very few active contributors to begin with, and I don't think those few active are concerned with affiliating (much to my chagrin) with other wikis. So I suppose I'll just wait for an opportunity in the future. FTWinchester (talk) 04:58, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

I found them (just realized there were two other), and it's Damon-Balthazar-Salvatore, and WarGrowlmon18, although whether or not they are still active on both, I am yet to find out. Still, thanks for keeping the discussion open. Cheers! FTWinchester (talk) 05:09, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on the Supernatural Wiki's talk pageEdit

Hi, Calebchiam, I just wanted to bring your attention to  a discussion titled Attention All Active Users and Admin on the main talk page. Sybil, the user who started it, has given extensive ideas on how to improve the wiki such as giving Achivement Points to users for being active and and users earning Badges for particulary acoomplishments as well as adding tools to the wiki such as, and Seeing as you have been trying to improve the wiki yourself such as seting policies, I thought you would like to give your imput. 07:57, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Narrative articlesEdit

Hey there. Just curious. Other wikis use dates (even if it just meant the year) or events to narrate the events of a story. I was just thinking if we should be doing the same, as opposed to using episode titles or seasons? I know it is hard because the MOTW episodes are rarely properly documented with respect to time frame, but for major events, it may be viable? FTWinchester (talk) 15:34, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I've given some input to the discussion. Also, regarding the tools for the Wiki, I think Sybil meant that users should actively use these sites to check for spelling and for creating citations in the course of editing the Wiki, rather than adding them as actual tools on the site. Calebchiam Talk 04:54, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Home/Main Page Edit

Hi, I would just like to point out an error in our homepage, which says

"We are a free repository about SUPERNATURAL, an television series created by Eric Kripke, which debuted on..."

The underline is my edit. I don't think a regular user could edit the template for the homepage. Thanks!

Also, about the narrative using dates vs. episode titles/seasons, I realize upon closer inspection that dates are hard to come by in the series. FTWinchester (talk) 12:10, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

proposal Edit

Good day, Calebchiam. I've planned on leaving this wiki, but my desire to contribute here is far too great to ignore. Anyway, for a while, I began contributing to another wikia (and before joining here, I had another account from another--the avatar wikia). I noticed that they had really good template usage that reflects in-series quotations in providing information about a certain article. So I thought that maybe we could also have them here? Below are a few ideas I've thought of.

Whoareyou Who are you?
This article is about a canonical subject whose real name is unknown, and is known only by a conjectural title, nickname or alias.

Possible use: all unnamed characters such as Eve's Vessel, Movie-Monsters Shapeshifter or even the demon Meg (whose real name was never revealed).

Casyourbible Your Bible gets more wrong than it does right.
This article contains information that are canonical but may have been retconned, or contradicted by information that are also canon.

Possible use: age of the archangels relative to metatron, demons being tortured souls but also not having one, souls being indestructible and yet purgatory souls dying, the age-old debate on Chuck being God, etc

Dickroman I might actively wipe your kind from the face of the Universe.
This article has been nominated for speedy deletion.

Possible use: replacement for the current template we have.

What do you think? FTWinchester (talk) 21:19, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Calebchiam. They were proposals anyway, so I'm open to changes. I will start thinking about a template for conjecture. I have a problem though, these templates I posted in your talk page are in the form of scripts/codes--I don't know how to save/register/input them as actual templates here like the ones we already have. If you could guide me in saving these codes in the system as opposed to typing them individually on every page, that would really be helpful. I have most of the weekend to work on these templates.  FTWinchester (talk) 01:54, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

So I tried creating the 'Alias' template, and based the code on the existing templates such as 'Spoilers' and 'Stub', but I couldn't get it to work. FTWinchester (talk) 02:25, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to flood your talk page with messages--I have just been really excited with the prospect of updating our templates. So far, I have managed to create the 'Alias' template successfully, and have used it on appropriate pages. I have also updated the 'Speedydelete' (or 'D') template with what you approved.

I take it you approve of the second template, but not on the topics I suggested it will be used on, or did I misunderstand you?

I will probably work on the conjecture template tomorrow (which as I understand your response, would be more appropriate to the topics I earlier suggested for the second template's use), and I will think of other possible templates (i.e., non-canon articles such as info from the animated series, probably one for disambiguation) we could use to help improve the wiki. Cheers, man! FTWinchester (talk) 03:08, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will take note of that, and I will add them to the 'Alias' template, as I think I haven't done those information yet. You're right, the 'Misha' one was kind of inappropriate. Also, are you also inclined to withhold or reject the 'Retcon/Conflict in Canon' and 'Bias' template? FTWinchester (talk) 11:55, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks! FTWinchester (talk) 12:10, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I've created the handful templates approved by the community. I just need some help in setting the parameters of use--I don't have much liberty with my time recently, and I don't want the project to stagnate. I've listed everything in the forum page. Please check it out. Thanks, mate! FTWinchester (talk) 05:13, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Hello Calebchiam, I'm addresing you as I'm intrested in affiliating wikis with you :D I come from the Once Wonderland Wiki, where I'm Beaurecrat. That wiki is REALLY new, as the show hasn't aired yet, but it will grow. Thanks for your time, and I'm waiting for your respone ASAP :D

As I see, you have no affiliates (at least not in the Home Page). The idea is something likethis that goes at the bottom of the home page :D Killian Jones 22:39, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

New AdminsEdit

Hey since Umairnadeem, Kyle Nin, Healingtears14 and Hallichester aren't active anymore, could you replace them with others? Having only three active admins(namely You, ImperiexSeed and MisterRandom2) for such a large wiki can spiral out of control. For the admins I would suggest Me, FTWinchester, Kesslerbeast and General MGD 09. The reason I'm suggesting their names is not because they're my friends. Hardly. But they are the ones who are unbiased, do not get into fights and are the most active. Do let me know if I can be considered or not.RaghavD The One and Only 09:43, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Take your time.RaghavD The One and Only 16:49, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since my request. Sure, you must be pretty busy but I only ask for 1 minute of your time. A Yes or No would suffice. If it's a No, just let me know why. That's all I ask.RaghavD Taking the ROAD less travelled 17:35, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Nice challenge btw. Here are my thoughts on the issue.

Scenario 1: 2nd user is basically trying to improve this Wiki to the best of his efforts. It must be a coincidence that the 2nd user is correcting only the 1st one's edits. So the 1st user is at fault for not understanding the mistakes that he's been doing and not being a good sport about it. So I'd gently show him that he's not being thorough in his edits and that it's ok if others are correcting him as The End Justifies The Means.

Scenario 2: Suppose we take the 1st user's word that the 2nd user is specifically targetting him, but doing it for the benefit of this Wiki, then both need to be reprimanded. The 1st user, for not accepting his mistakes on the edits and continuosly including wrong info and the 2nd user for simply going behind a single person. Sure, the 2nd person's intentions are honest, but one would also need to be sensitive to others which the 2nd user obviously isn't. So I would ask the 1st user to be thorough enough so that there isn't much scope for a person to be just targetting him and also to have an open mind. I would let the 2nd user know that his efforts to improve this Wiki are appreciated, but would also ask him to be more sensitive in the future.RaghavD Taking the ROAD less travelled 10:09, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

I had already familiarised myself with the policies on this Wiki when I started editing and I read them again to refresh them. I would, without a doubt, abide by the rules during my tenure as an admin. RaghavD Taking the ROAD less travelled 05:25, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making a Sysop. I had a question: Is it possible to customize the automated Welcome message that a new user receives from the admin? and also can we see the new users who have registered on the Wikia? On the main page I checked the List of Users but found nothing about new users.RaghavD Taking the ROAD less travelled 13:48, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I found the answers myself :) RaghavD Taking the ROAD less travelled 05:23, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat RequestEdit

Hey, I'm a user. I am good with MediaWiki. My friends and I are. We are just asking, do you want this wiki a little makeover. Just asking. And if you do I'll need a bureaucrat status. It is just your opinion. Superman-Logo-Signature-QaYYum.png ~TomWelling~ Superman-Logo-Signature-QaYYum.png 15:18, June 21, 2013 (UTC)


Hey there, Caleb. I just have a few questions. I just find it weird that when I hit the search bar for 'old ones', it won't even show the page on Leviathans (a page which clearly contains the keywords for the search request). I was thinking of maybe creating a redirect page from 'Old Ones' to 'Leviathans', just so we could have better search results and direction to leviathans, but I'm not sure if we allow the creation of pages here just for the sake of redirects. FTWinchester (talk) 02:20, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! You even made it yourself. Awesome. FTWinchester (talk) 11:53, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Pages Edit

Hey there, Caleb. I just have a few queries. I've been going over the wiki and I've found that we have several topics that we lack information on. However, I'm in two minds on whether I should just make them as a separate page, or as additional information on related pages. Normally, I'd just go for the latter, however, in some of the topics we are missing, it just doesn't seem right to cram them on another page. For example, we lack pages on rituals and spells (this is something that recently caught my attention, if you've noticed the recent flurry of activity on pages related to it). We have pages for 'Ritual' and 'Spells' but both were severely lacking, and as I've stated in the talk page of Ritual, it seeems off that we are cramming them all into that page. It feels better and sounds more logical to create separate pages and then group them into one category.

That being said, I'm more wary about topics such as summoning and banishing demons/angels, binding death and reapers, etc--all of which have been touched on in certain articles, but the act/method/procedure of the rituals themselves were never given much attention. The very rituals were relegated only as one-liners in episode synopses or on biographies of certain individuals or of a species/race's page. In fact, when I look at the category 'Ritual', I tilt my head in confusion because I know there were way more rituals in the show than those currently grouped under the category (same for Books and scrolls, which could include countless other written sources that have only appeared or have been mentioned once, although they were important plot devices). I'm asking your opinion on this because you are generally the most reliable and neutral source on what warrants a page or not. I don't have time to go through debates that could stretch for months before fruition is achieved. FTWinchester (talk) 06:05, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, there's even a term. I knew I could count on you. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 12:41, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Search Results Edit

I just remembered our previous conversation about bumping our wiki's guest visits. I tried searching for articles related to Supernatural and somehow, the Super-wiki always get priority in search results from google. I don't understand how they do that. I don't think I can personally do anything to help us get the priority but I was just curious if you have an explanation as to why this happens. For many other literature or series, their corresponding wikia shows up immediately after the wikipedia article, whereas I find our wiki's situation to be the only one to come third, after the wikipedia article and the supernaturalwiki website (or even, in some cases, the super-wiki comes first). FTWinchester (talk) 02:18, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences, FTWinchester. Whenever I want go on this wiki, I actually have to type "castiel (or other) supernatural"  on Bing just to find it easily.  OItherwise if seach "supernatual wiki" I only get Super-Wiki at the top of  the first page for the search results, wheras the last I checked, this one was at the same spot on the second page. 05:16, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

That wiki is so damn (pardon me) popular. I believe that it is because of them allowing fandom into the site as well. Fanfics are also allowed. I mean they've got a bunch of people checking the internet 24 hours for any small info on the show. They are on Twitter, Tumblr, they've even got their own Wikipedia page!. Content wise we are better, but we lose on popularity. When Lucifer Rising aired, that wiki started a #luciferiscoming tag. It created a furore because religious fanatics lead by the stupid P.Diddy, thought that satanists were trying to take over Twitter and retaliated with a #Godishere tag. It was all over the internet. It even got mentioned by an author of Supernatural tie in novels as his research source. They were acknowledged by CW themselves. Today I created an account on that Wiki. I was just one of the 20 something people with a new account today. We hardly have one new account per day. Don't get me wrong. I love this site more than that. Just stating facts. RaghavD Taking the ROAD less travelled 13:52, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Misha the one that started the hashtag? But anyway, I agree. They do have more articles because they allow fanfics and other fanon into their site, which must be shooting up their visits and popularity. Frankly, I also visit their page because I need to check episode transcripts from time to time, and their minutiae section is entertaining. Still, it's just a bit disappointing, though. Throughout season 8, we were more updated with the articles in lore, but in the end, we still lose out. FTWinchester (talk) 14:39, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I know, SEO (search-engine optimisation) is based on a whole host of factors. One thing is originality of content, because search engines can tell if a page has simply copied content from another site, and that would lower its search ranking. Intra-site links improve SEO rankings too, if I remember correctly. Also, one should note that search engine results differ from user to user, since the sites you visit most often will automatically get a higher ranking - all part of Google's tailoring of their system to a person's preferences. And like you've mentioned, site popularity is a part of it as well. If you want more details, you'd have to approach Wikia staff, I know that they occasionally edit the Mainpage and whatnot improve its SEO. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 14:50, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Spin-off Edit

Should the Supernatural spin-off push through, we are allowed to cover it, aren't we? RaghavD and I have been discussing it hereFTWinchester (talk) 12:41, July 31, 2013 (UTC)


I was thinking of creating a page or category for the commercial merchandise available, based on the show. I had a few questions

  1. Is it ok if I go ahead with it? That is, whether you feel it is necesary or not.
  2. DVDs are undoubtably a part of the merchandise, but I wanted to know your opinion on whether novels, comics too would come under such category or not. 

Whatever you decide, I'll abide by it. RaghavD Heck yes, I'm so ODD!! 16:44, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Great!. I'll finish writing as many novels' plot synopses as I can. RaghavD Heck yes, I'm so ODD!! 16:13, August 21, 2013 (UTC)


I requested a spot light for the wiki and for its sake, changed the main page protection level. Hope you don't mind. RaghavDAll I need is ONE life, ONE try, ONE breath, I'm ONE man 17:52, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Putting my name forward Edit

Hello, I'm writing to put my name forward for a candidate if your looking for a new admin on this wiki. As a regular user who has greatly contributed to certain parts of this wiki, I feel I will be able to provide much help to improving this wiki and as such. I have a possitive relationship with most if not all the other regular users and I continually get involved with Wiki matters. I also already help solve problems that other users have and as such I feel I will be able to provide more assistance in this requested postion. Just putting my name forward. General MGD 109 (talk) 21:50, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Licensed Video SwapEdit

Hola, my name is Nic and I'm a member of the Wikia Community Development team. Recently our Special:LicensedVideoSwap tool has been updated with a list of new content for your wiki. For more information on this, please view here. If you would like assistance in swapping these videos, feel free to ask. - Wagnike2 (talk) 19:49, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

Orphan Pages and Dead ends Edit

Do we have any policies on the following? Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 02:47, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

Also, what are your thoughts on creating pages for certain topics that do not have much information, but are clearly separate and distinct topics that are not mentioned or included in any existing page(s)? How about topics that are briefly mentioned in one page but could be given a separate page, not because of the quantity of information on the topic, but because the page they were mentioned in is too generic/cluttered with information about other related topics? Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 15:33, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of what orphan pages and dead ends were, but thanks for refreshing me. I know we should avoid those, it's just that I don't think the whole community is aware of it, because we have quite a number of pages that fall in either of the two. Thanks for your opinion on the granulation/grouping. FTWinchester (talk) 17:05, December 17, 2013 (UTC)


Isn't it high time that the wiki has a new B'crat? To take care of conflicts whenever you are not around? It's not like I'm hankering after it, just letting you know so that you'll consider it. RaghavD'"Look into my eyes. It’s where my demons hide" 07:33, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Admin Edit

Hello Caleb, my name is josh (but you would know me and can reach me at dean.winchestor.54)As my friend Imperiexseed (the admin) said, I really would like to be promoted to Admin on the Supernatural wiki. He and I feel that I would be fit for the job, and I care way too much about Supernatural and it's wiki to not be promoted. I edit the wiki a lot, and only add factual things, not speculation. An example of an impressive edit I made was on angels. This didn't just impact the angel page though, it impacted many pages, such as demons, Seraphim, Zachariah, Castiel, and more. Previously on the wiki, it stated that the known classes of angels were Archangel>Seraph>angel>Cupid, and that lead all the fans to believe this is true. I found out that this is inaccurate information by putting small things from the show together. Archangels are known to be the first class of angel, and Castiel stated in "My bloody valentine" that Cupids were the third class of angels. That means that there is only one type of angel that is higher than Cupid, and weaker than archangel, and that must be a seraph. This proves that there is no "ordinary angel" class in between "seraph" and "Cupid". I discovered this, and I corrected all the pages I could find with the wrong information. None of the current admins knew the correct information, but I did. This took a couple hours strait, but it was worth it, knowing the wiki is correct now. That is why I deserve to be an admin, because I care so much for Supernatural, and the wikia, and I know more about Supernatural than anyone should, including the admins. Please return to your Supernatural account, and promote me to admin, so I can do even more for the wiki. Thank you so much :) Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 05:42, June 9, 2014 (UTC) 

please reply to this as soon as you can :) Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 07:15, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that I should have only sent the message to one of the bureaucrats, but the wiki staff member "love robin" said that you haven't even active in long time and I should ask the rest of the team. Also she said that since you haven't been active in a while that I should try to contact you on your other wiki that you were active on. Again sorry about that, I thought it was rather distasteful too. Since it sounds like admin shush is about quantity (not quality) how many edits should I have before requesting again, and how long should I have had this account? Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 17:50, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Love Robin here. First, I'm not Wikia Staff. I'm just a helpful soul active on Community Central who replied on MerryStar's Central Wall. Second, I was the one who pointed him in your direction as being still active on Wikia. Third, I cannot see all the wikis Dean contacted you on, only that if you did not respond here in a timely fashion that trying on you Central Wall was allowable. And fourth, that it would have been more suitable for ImperiexSeed as a local admin to do the contacting on Dean's behalf.
Mainly I'm here to correct the misconception of my role on Wikia in General. Beyond that I have no further thoughts or comments on the matter. (well, other than Message Walls should be considered for activation here) --Love Robin (talk) 05:42, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Admin qualifications. Edit

Hi Caleb. I would really like to become an admin, and know that you don't see me fit, so I wanted to know what steps I could take to raise my qualification for adminship. I am passionate about Supernatural and the wiki, and I would really appreciate it if you told me what I have to do to get your "blessing" and become an admin. Please message me back when you can. Bye :) Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 20:28, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

If you are active, please respond when you can. Dean.winchestor.54 (talk) 00:45, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucratic rights for me Edit

Hey, Calebchiam, I would like to re-request and ask you for bureaucrat rights again seeing as you adjured me last time, and rightly so, I was extremely acerbic towards you and had an egregious attitude, and, for that, I'm sorry. I've had the stationary position of admin here on the Supernatural wiki for a while now, and I will not cogently try an convince your hand, but I believe I better understand the standards and qualifications for bureaucratic rights now. And, as I understand it, a bureaucratic position enables the user to make management corrections all over wikia. I will not inimically insult or attack you again if you still deny me, but I would at least like to know what I can do to improve to, at some point in time, attain the rights. Thanks. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:00 PM, August 5th 2014

Sorry about the late response to both of you, this year has just been extra-busy for me as I move on to the next phase of my life, but that's not really important here. Firstly, while I admire both of you in your dedication to the Wiki, frankly, I just don't feel comfortable with giving you (Imperiex) the ability to sysop other users. You have a history of bad judgement and you're not all that mature, sorry. I'm simply not confident that you'll have the sense to use it wisely, though I do not doubt your sincerity. I would like someone else to be a bureaucrat though, ideally someone with a good understanding of Wiki process and a level head, but I haven't seen anyone with that kind of experience around here yet.

Josh, I wouldn't have given the sysop tools to you, because while your intentions are good, you are new and you don't really understand how to use the tools appropriately. MerryStar has overstepped herself in giving you the tools per Imperiex's request, but I suppose that's my fault too for not responding quickly enough. I am uncomfortable with the idea of letting you keep them, given that you've already used your blocking powers to block Imperiex at one point (d'oh?) and you are not that mature either (at least based on how I've seen you conduct yourself on the Wiki), so I'm tempted to simply remove them. I will give you the benefit of doubt for now, but know that I will not hesitate to desysop you if you misuse these tools. Cheers to both of you. Calebchiam Talk 02:50, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, CalebChiam, for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It was an accident when I blocked Imperiexseed. There was another user who was spamming the junk out of the wiki, and I was trying to block him. Imperiexseed had an edit close by, and I accidently scrolled up, and clicked his. Doing so, I accidently blocked him instead. Honest mistake. As soon as I relized my mistake, I unbloked him. As an admin, I promise to not abuse, or misuse my powers. I will not post biased information, specialtion, or false information. I will also do my best to remove spam and speculation. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:28, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


Hi there, Caleb! I was wondering if you'd like to affiliate with The Secret Circle, The Originals, and Night World Wiki, since our wikis are set in the supernatural genre, and both The Secret Circle and The Originals are CW shows. I want to attract more contributors to help out at my wikis, and I'm sure Supernatural Wiki will benefit in return. I'll add your wiki to our main page if you do with mine.

Night World Wiki

The Secret Circle Wiki

The Originals Wiki

M.J. Daniels (talkcontribs) 14:04, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

On Retcon of Reapers Edit

I believe we now have a rational use for this template RetconFTWinchester (talk) 13:20, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Carver has turned Reapers into Angels this season. He has revealed that they are a lower class of angel, and they serve Heaven. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 17:11, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't affirm the template unless there were at least two pages where it'd relatively fit. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:16 PM, September 27th 2014

Sounds fine that we use it; it's not as if we have a shortage of space on the Wiki or anything. Calebchiam Talk 15:42, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Caleb. Imperiex, technically speaking, all reaper pages like Tessa and Bobby's reaper were also retconned as well, so I don't see any problem with it. I still think the retcon was stupid, but what can we do. FTWinchester (talk) 01:20, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Chuck page being GodEdit

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)

Bureaucrat Edit

Hey, CalebChiam. You hadn't been active for a couple months, so the wiki staff asked me to have the wikia take a vote about me becoming a bureaucrat. Since I have gotten these votes, with no objections, can you please promote me to bureaucrat? Thanks in advance! EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 05:38, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

If you don't promote me to a bureaucrat, can you please leave a message on my talk page telling me how I can better myself, so that I am (in your eyes) worthy of bureaucratic rights? I really only want what's best for this wikia. Thanks. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 06:25, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

Adoption Guidelines Edit

Hello. I'm glad you have decided to return to the wikia and be active again.

I actually turned down Empyrean's recent request to become a bureaucrat because I saw that you were active again. I take nothing in an adoption request at "face value", and existing admin activity is the first thing I check on every single request I answer.

That aside, here's how it works. After 30 days of bureaucrat inactivity, with community support ("community" must be users who contribute to the wikia) and no response after a week to a message left for the bureaucrat, we will promote a user to administrator. If the bureaucrat returns to activity and objects he can remove the rights at that time. However, after 60 days of bureaucrat inactivity, and with a community discussion, we will promote a new bureaucrat.

At the time I answered EmpyreanSmoke's request for admin rights last August you had not edited for 60 days, and he had the support of the only other active admin. He met all of the other adoption criteria as well, so he was promoted. As it happens he didn't ask for bureaucrat rights but he could have done.

So, if you wish to avoid anybody getting promoted without your consent in the future the solution is fairly simple; make sure you contribute to the wiki regularly and, if you can't do that, at least answer messages left for you within about a week. If you are going to be inactive for longer make sure to leave another active admin you trust to run things.

I hope that addresses your concerns but please let me know if you have any further questions. -- Wendy (talk@Wikia 04:10, November 20, 2014 (UTC)


Hey! Are you guys looking for admins now? Tysonjackson (talk) 04:46, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

On Trials and Tools Edit

Hi, Calebchiam. I'm willing to give this a try. I will do my best, only because no other user seems to be volunteering, and after reading other users' support, I feel like I would disappoint the community of a much needed admin by saying 'no'. So I guess I'll man up and help lead. Do I answer some questions or anything? Are there references I could see to review the role? Will there be a probationary period for me to adjust to the role or to see if I feel comfortable doing this? Please advise. Thank you very much. FTWinchester (talk) 02:15, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Calebchiam, can I please have my admin rights back? I gave them up, in coercion, because EmpyreanSmoke wouldn't stop nagging and squabbling me to give them up, saying he took a poll where more people said I should give them up, but I heard that more than one poll can be taken and, Hell, all of them who voted could've all been EmpyreanSmoke using different usernames. -- ImperiexSeed, 9:21 PM, November 21st 2014

Oh, no. I didn't mean that when I said 'lead' at all. I understand that the wiki operates on a consensus. Anyway, I'll be reading them now to familiarize myself, thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 03:42, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Calebchiam, can you please reinstate me and restore my admin rights? As I said up above^, I gave them up under duress and would like them back. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:49 PM, November 21st 2014

I've gone over the policies at least twice and will be keeping a close eye on them, and established admins like yourself or RaghavD, until I get familiarized. I think I'm ready now. Thank you. FTWinchester (talk) 04:21, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

I will do my best! Thank you! FTWinchester (talk) 04:37, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Hello Edit

Hello, I'm Twilight Despair 5 or Td5 for short. I Know with all the uproar over over admins and bureaucrats rights it's been a bit chaotic here. I was wondering if I could be made an admin or a bureaucrat I am the Chat Monitor already; unless I was demoted. If I have to make user vote blogs, I will. Just we do need more admins, and I do pride myself from separating any beliefs or opinion I might have, from the series info. I try to only explain the facts and in unbias ways of detailing them as much as I can. No rush on the reply, and apologizes on any grammar errors on moblie right now. [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 04:19, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

I wish you volunteered a lot sooner, man. Would have saved me. But anyway, I already agreed to take up one of the mantles and I agree that we need at least one more active admin. It would be great to serve with someone like you. especially since you already have some experience as chat moderator. I am giving you my support. FTWinchester (talk) 04:46, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

At FTWinchester. Thank you for your support. At Calebchiam. Thank you for your review of my edits, even if you decide to not promote me at this time or ever. As far as pages I made.... I know I made the Gods now titled Deities page and the Magic page. I am sure I've made more but cannot remember at this second. I normally just go around fixing edit errors and bias content in the articles.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 02:05, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Have you made a decision?[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 00:10, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Re: AdminEdit

Hey! Okay, thanks! I will try to edit more and learn more of the rules and stuff before I request :D Tysonjackson (talk) 06:02, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Projects Edit

Hi, Caleb. I would just like to propose a couple things. The first one is the revival of the Grammar/Tense guide in writing articles, which I first suggested last year, and could be found Tense Policy here. I was thinking that this could help standardize our articles, but nobody really gave any opinions on it back then when I first proposed it.

Another proposal of mine is to promote the use of reference tags, which will support the concept of neutrality and help us be more stringent in writing articles that are in full accordance with the canon. This way, writing claims of a character's personality or powers/abilities that could be affected by personal bias would be reduced, since contributors will have to provide citation on when and where the claim actually happened. I have started this with the main characters and a few personal favorite articles of mine even before I became an admin, and it would be nice if we could all start using it (especially since we now have far too many articles for just one user to add the tags to). Would you allow me to add the procedure to the policies? Please advise. Thank you. FTWinchester (talk) 16:21, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will start working on them as soon as I can. Especially on the use of reference tags. I see edit wars have becoming common recently, and being required to cite references would surely help to prevent baseless claims. Sorry I wasn't around when the edit war happened. I just got home. But I'd also like to let you know, if you weren't aware, that those two have been at each others' throats for some time now. I even had to post this to remind them about acting appropriately. And that was just last month. I will admit I used a vulgar word at the very end, though, and I'm sorry for that. But only because even with me calling them out, they still quarreled like children. I promise not to do it again, especially with me now being an admin. Really sorry about that one. FTWinchester (talk) 02:57, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I left a message to both of them and also reminded Imperiex of how we also had that problem before and I just kept on explaining how I wasn't targetting him as vendetta or anything. I hope they settle down as soon as possible. Their passion and energy would work best together, not against each other. FTWinchester (talk) 03:47, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Will do. FTWinchester (talk) 03:52, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for notifying me. I will take note of that. FTWinchester (talk) 04:10, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Whelp. I feel like a blithering idiot. Sorry. I will keep that in mind. Also, if you think I'm not doing a good job, do let me know. I operate mostly on feedback, so it would really help me know how well or bad I'm doing as an admin. FTWinchester (talk) 02:39, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 02:22, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

EmpyreanSmoke Edit

Hello CalebChiam, it is EmpyreanSmoke. I have presented to you the honest explination of what happened. Other users have said that there isn't a way to prove one or the other, so they said they believe me. Since there is equal evidence for both explanations, shouldn't we go by "inocent until proven guilty"? I think that would be the most fair way to resolve this. I honestly did not make sock puppet accounts. May I please be unblocked, and have my admin rights back, as I didn't do what I was accused of? Thanks in advance.


Hey, so I have a question. I have a Supernatural wiki - - that's mainly for my own enjoyment, not really any reasons behind it. And I was wondering if it would be okay if I used the info from old revisions of pages, such as Meg? The info back then was a lot less neater and detailed. Tysonjackson (talk) 20:22, November 30, 2014 (UTC)


Hey! I actually decided to do my own recaps but thanks. My wiki is mainly just for me to edit on and test out ideas. I still use this wiki and try to edit as much as I can. :D Tysonjackson (talk) 20:01, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

I made the blog and waiting on votes. If I did it wrong let me know.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 01:00, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

I figured it did it wrong, hence why I asked. But until further notice, I only have my company computer and iPad and they have strict no none work related researches. They check the histories ever weekend. I am only have my mobile, and well I can buy another computer in a few months. Kind of hard to follow the instructions, when you can't have multiple windows open on an iphone.

Not to involve my real-life into the wikia. But my work has been slow and until it picks up I don't go spending on none bills or food. So if you want to wait, till I can make the official page, or until someone else makes one. But I would rather not make someone do my work, is fine with me. Also, I checked all admin tools are workable from mobile full site options.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 03:57, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Need your opinion Edit

Hey, Caleb. If you could please weigh in on the new discussion about EmpyreanSmoke's block status. So far most have reached consensus about lifting Empyrean's block (simply because we're all getting tired and there is no way to confirm his story without him divulging private/personal concerns) BUT against restoring his admin rights. I'm getting quite weary of the fiasco, I couldn't log in and do my job properly here without being dragged into the matter. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 13:42, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. FTWinchester (talk) 17:12, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Ruby/Season 3Edit

Can I add Ruby as a secondary villain for Season 3? Honestly, she did more evil than Bela, who was more so an on/off frenemy. Im not saying Bela should be removed but I think they both should be added. Also remember the whole fight at the end of the season and we know that they never made up because the "Ruby" who allied herself with them during the final fight was Lilith. Tysonjackson (talk) 05:10, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Supernatural Community AppEdit

Hey Calebchiam,

Did you know that approximately half of the visits across Wikia are coming from mobile devices? To support that mobile traffic, Wikia is creating iOS and Android apps that focus exclusively on individual communities.

We are happy to inform you that your community has been selected to receive a dedicated community app. This means that you will have an app exclusively for your community that you, the admins, can curate!

Please see this help page that will explain how and where to manage your content in your community app, and also ways to promote your Community App on your own community.

If you have any questions about the Community App itself, how to manage content on it, or how to promote it, please write in to Special:Contact.

Thanks for being an exceptional community! Good luck with the app!

Siggy4.png @@Wikia (profile)•(talk) 12:47, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Mainpage + Slider Edit

Is there a reason we are keeping the slider coding separate from the main page? I want to update it weekly but having to find two different templates to edit and see if both were working fine together is a bit frustrating. Please advise. Thanks! FTWinchester (talk) 17:30, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

EmpyreanSmoke Request for AdminshipEdit

Hi there. We're currently discussing Empyrean's adminship status. I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in here. Thanks. Gourgeist (talk) 22:42, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

RfA Edit

I think I overwrote your edit on Empyrean's RfA. I rolledback my edit, saved, and then re-added my post but I'm not sure if that recovered your edit. FTWinchester (talk) 13:43, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 13:49, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Hey Edit

Thanks and I'll be more active on a weekly bases after Xmas. And if there are admin issues, you ever need help with let me know. 21:24, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

That was me Td5. [[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 21:44, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Need your assistanceEdit

Hi, Caleb. As you may have noticed, several users have been spamming flame and criticism war against each other apparently from an old argument they had from other websites. Discussion could be found here. I tried to find a way to mediate but things have gotten so blown out of proportion that the only option I see is to just block everyone involved as pretty much everyone had no significant contributions to the actual wiki itself. I would really appreciate for you to weigh in on this. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 23:34, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers Question Edit

I left this on the Talk page for The Man Who Knew Too Much, but then I found this, and thought it would be a better place. So... I've looked high and low, and can't find a "best practices" or anything else to guide me on this. I'm watching Supernatural for the first time, and have found this very useful. But, I keep coming across spoilers of future episodes, and I can't be the only one that wishes I could avoid them. I don't see a way of hiding them, without actually removing them, which is a feature I think should exist. And I don't see any prohibition about them. Is there somewhere I should be looking for this kind of info, that I haven't found, yet? Saintless77 (talk) 05:24, January 2, 2015 (UTC)

Unreadable Page Design - Cast and Crew Crossovers Edit

The Cast and crew crossovers page was completely unreadable. It had a bright blue background in the table cells, so the text either blended in or had way too much contrast. The colors were set by styles in the markup, so I just removed the background color. I thought I'd mention it here, in case there's some sort of standard that I don't know about for pages like this. It could still use some work, because only the outside of the table has a border, and the cells should probably match. Saintless77 (talk) 07:11, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

Users BennyCupster and ScombridaeEdit

Hi there. As I'm sure you're already fully aware, certain users, BennyCupster and Scombridae, have on many occassions argued over the wiki back and forth despite warnings from admins to stop. BennyCupster (whom is believed to be an already banned ResonX) even uttered death threats upon all users who participated in chat in the chat room several weeks ago. Despite multiple warnings from two admins (you and FTWinchester), BennyCupster has ignored them all and has further continued to leave a bad mark on the wiki without any actual known contribution to articles. I think we'd all appreciate it if you could take some kind of conclusive action, as we both know nothing will change with another loose warning. Maybe a forum can be made in judgment of these two. The wiki's attention has far too long been held off by these two, please let it finish so we may continue on with unconcerned editing. Thanks very much. ^__^ Gourgeist (talk) 23:59, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

Can ResonX and his alt accounts along with the trolls he attracted be banned from this wiki? Or wikia in general? Every single wikia he goes to, he attracts this horde of terrible people shitting up every wiki he goes to. He's admitted that's he's so egotistical that he won't stop linking his real name and Moleman9000 name to every account he uses, despite the fact that it attracts so many damn trolls. 00:09, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Again, I NEVER threatened any legitimate user of this site, and the trolls in question are now altering my own messages and vandalizing my user page with hateful messages up to and including threats of genocide with zero provocation and with myself making no further edits besides simply protecting my own user page and existing messages. BennyCupster (talk) 00:40, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you... Edit

...For obvious reasons. BennyCupster (talk) 01:35, January 8, 2015 (UTC)

Simple request Edit

Could you, for the record, unblock my main account whose current wrongful block falsely says I made "death threats" based on cyberbully impersonation? BennyCupster (talk) 02:51, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Just a thoughtEdit

Hey, how are you doing? I was just wondering if the other admins are doing the clean up as well? I know I myself don't have much time anymore, but I do fix orphan and dead end pages at least once a week/every two weeks with what little time I have here. And I just noticed the list doesn't get any smaller outside of my intervention at all. If they're busy, maybe it's time we nominate more active admins? FTWinchester (talk) 21:54, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested is welcome to self-nominate or ask another user if they might be willing to nominate them. - Caleb 03:11, February 11, 2015 (UTC)~

Quick request Edit

Can you please add the leaderboard on this wiki. It would encourage more people to edit and can we also have comments on pages.Dream Inspiration2014 (talk) 10:04, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Noted, I'm doing a stint in the army so I won't be able to respond properly until next Friday, I'm afraid. Cheers. - Calebchiam 03:11, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Community Choice Awards Edit

Hello! What's your take on a community choice awards as suggested by wikia staff Gcheung28? Her complete proposal is at the bottom of my talk page. It looks interesting but I've been quite removed from recent episodes and I only focus more on clean up. Thanks! FTWinchester (talk) 17:14, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Admin rights Edit

Hey, CalebChiam. A while back when I lost my administrator rights, you said that later, if the other admins/established users didn't mind it, that you would return my admin rights. It has been nearly half a year, and I have set up a blog, and left messages on people's talk pages requesting to get my rights back. ImperiexSeed said he supports me getting my rights back, Twilight Despair 5 said he supports me getting my rights back, TysonJackson said he supports me getting my rights back, Gabriel456 said that he doesn't mind me getting my rights back, RaghavD said he doesn't really want me to have my rights back, and FTWinchester said he wouldn't mind me having some rights, but not necessarily admin rights yet. A few other people whom I have asked said that they either want to remain impartial to the vote, or haven't responded to my message. As you can see, out of the established users who have placed their vote, 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. I'm sorry for what happened before, and have asked the wikia for another chance. Since a consensus has been taken, and you said that you would return my rights if the community agreed, will you please return my admin rights? Thank you so much in advance. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 18:47, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CalebChiam. Thank you for granting me rollback rights, but I would like to point out a few things.

  • TysonJackson said that I was a great admin, because he forgave me for what happened, and is recalling the job I did before the incident.
  • Twilight Despair 5 has given me his full support.
    Image an
    He says he approves of me being an admin, lists why he approves, and says his official answer is yes.
  • I have responded to ImperiexSeed's condition on Facebook, explained what happened, and agreed to not do it so harshly in the future.
    He then confirmed that I had his vote, and therefore approval. I don't think his approval is based on our relationship, as we have had many bumps when it came to wikia rights.
  • Gabriel456 said that he didn't mind either way, which means that he doesn't mind me getting my admin rights again. I realize that this isn't direct approval, but it means that he feels comfortable with me being an admin.
  • Consensus simply means the general agreement upon something. So if the majority of people feel comfortable with me becoming an admin again, then that actually is a consensus. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 18:58, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


Hey! Could you meet me on chat? There's something I'd like to discuss with some users. Tysonjackson (talk) 01:26, May 29, 2015 (UTC)


Hey! Here's what I wanted to discuss with everyone! :D Tysonjackson (talk) 01:41, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Wiki RedesignEdit

Staff member Grace mentioned that our Wiki's Main Page contains too many templates and offered to help redesign the Wiki. What do you say about that? RaghavD'"Look into my eyes. It’s where my demons hide" 14:37, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let her know about your consent. :) RaghavD'"Look into my eyes. It’s where my demons hide" 15:29, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Improvement Edit

Hello, CalebChiam. I'm sorry to have to bug you again, I'm sure you find me the most annoying user on here. Before I go on to anything else, I would like to apologize for my previous behavior. I was acting childish and immature, and for this, as well as my obnoxious persistence, I'm sorry. I read over what you had to say the last time we talked, and realized that you were right. I was rather immature in general, had poor judgment when it came to certain situations, and didn't handle confrontation well. I saw that this behavior wasn't going to get me anywhere in life, so I knew I had to change it. I feel that since we have last spoken, I have matured out of this childish behavior. I think that my judgment has been focused into perspective, and my attitude towards others has gotten better. I am still working on my confrontation skills (When I get upset towards others), but I think that I have recently gotten better about it. To be perfectly honest, I am striving to become a user more like FTWinchester; remaining unbiased when editing the wikia, remaining calm during disputes, and staying neutral when other users are not agreeing. Both FTWinchester and RaghavD have been inactive for over a month, which has left TD5 alone to carry out administrator duties. We both agree that the wikia should have more regularly active admins, and he has given me his support in regaining admin rights. I am politely requesting that you return my administrator rights. I really do think that I have matured, and am continuing to do so, and with the recent inactivity of admins, I think this would be in the best interest of the wikia. If you still think I am not mature enough, and would like me to wait, then we will leave it at that. I will not debate you, I will not argue. All I ask is that you advise me as to how to improve my behavior, to make me a better user, fit to bear the rights of administrator. Thank you. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 00:38, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CalebChiam. I did as you requested and created a new RFA page. It been 3-4 weeks and nobody has commented on it. It isn't listed on the current RFA page, or on the Archived RFA's, so I'm not sure what that means. Please message me back with some clarification. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:47, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Since I put up the RFA page several weeks ago, and asked users to add their views as you requested, there have been three comments on the discussion board. Most of the people I contacted haven't put down their thoughts, so ImperiexSeed, TwilightDespair5, and tommy,klaus&kol2012+ have commented. Imperiex wrote that he fully supported me getting admin rights, thinks that I have really matured, and thinks I could help clean up the wikia. TD5 and Tommy's statements were just that they supported me becoming an admin; no reasoning behind it. I'm not sure if those qualify when it comes to consensus, so your decision is key. Thanks. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 17:57, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for passing the RFA and for your kind words. I too wanted there to be more input on the RFA page, as I wanted more of the community's voice to be heard. I thought that I contacted FTWinchester and RaghavD when I reached out to the other users, but I guess that I forgot.

I truely do think that I have improved as a person since the last time I had my rights. I was really immature then, and I sort of face palm myself whenever I think of the stupid things I said/did. I admit that I use to view the rights as more of a trophy for my own agenda, but know I see past that, knowing they are for me to help the community, and not myself.

I'll take a look at that guide you sent me, and will try to improve my editing skills. Thanks again for the kind words and advice! EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 23:56, September 28, 2015 (UTC)


I am an admin and in charge of Supernatural Fanon Wiki, which is a wikia for fan creations. I would like to be known to Supernatural Wiki and be an affiliate of this wiki. If that is okay with you, that would great.

Superjokertv (talk) 13:35, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Should an admin be locking pages and blocking users so they can add their fan theory to pages? EmpreyanSmoke has been doing this in regards to Leviathans being able to kill archangels, demons and pagan gods, but should these fan theories really be put into articles, especially when the show never showed the theory, and the cast and crew never stated any of it at cons or Q and As? I see he's an admin, but should he really just be putting his own theory on the site, and make it so no one else can remove it since it was never shown in an episode? That doesn't seem right.

I can't facepalm hard enough for this. Once again (for like the eightieth time now), it's not a theory. It's a plain as frickin' day fact. Cas said in 7x23 that Leviathan can literally just chomp the whole aquarium, and even archangels are apart of the aquarium. And if Leviathan can eat/kill archangels, then they can easily kill all angels, all demons (except maybe Knights), all monsters, and all deities (except God). Also, Dick said if he wasn't busy, he'd wipe out all of demonkind, meaning Leviathan at the very least, can take out an entire species. To put it very bluntly, they can eat/kill anything any manner of creature besides God, Death, the Darkness, the other Horsemen, Oberon and maybe Knights. And if they later introduce something stronger than the Leviathan, we'll address it then, until then, Levis are easily top-dog. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:21 PM, September 30th 2015

edit war Edit

Alright, thank you for clearing that up. I had semi locked the articles, but the reverting kept going on. The user's did revert it over 3 times after warnings, and that is why I blocked them. I'll have a discussion page for people to talk it out rather than blocking or allowing the edit war. Thanks for helping out :) EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:52, October 1, 2015 (UTC)

Should the fan theories about Leviathans being the weakness of Lilith, Azazel, Alastair, and the Archangels Michael Gabriel Raphael and Lucifer be removed from the pages while the discussion is held on allowing fan interpretations onto the wiki? A week ago, none of the pages said the information, and then someone kept adding it. I don't think I should try, because Empreyan will probably block me for a while again, and the arcangel pages are all locked. Can you do this?

Oh, sorry, I didn't see that. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:42, October 1, 2015 (UTC)

Renewed edit-warringEdit

On the invulnerability page, the user keeps ading in a fan theory they have, despite it never being discussed on the show and have been reverting anyone who tries to remove it. You told Empreyansmoke it was wrong to block me last week cus I still hadn't reverted three times, but this user has undid what everyones been undoing more than three times and could be blocked for continuing I think. ( 20:14, October 6, 2015 (UTC)), look at the weaknesses section, it has already been discussed their. Leviathans can kill archangels, the majority of the user who contributed to the discussion agreed to that. 22:52, October 6, 2015 (UTC)
They're continuing to add their fan theory to the site, and have reverted other users removing their theory over five times today. Is this site about what some fans think can happen, or about what actually happened in the show Supernatural? ( 23:26, October 6, 2015 (UTC))
"" << me, @ This edit war can't go on, could you consider registering an account to discuss this in Empyrean's weaknesses blog ? As of now, the majority agreed that leviathans can kill archangels, it was highly implied on the show.  Lambda1 (talk) 23:58, October 6, 2015 (UTC)
Since it was Lambda1 who reverted people who removed his fan theory 6 times, and I ( only undid his fan fiction 3 times, reverted 3 times, reverted once and reverted once, isn't Lambda1 going against the 3RR rule? Not once did he say anything on the talk page to try and resolve, but just kept adding his theory back in. ( 01:37, October 7, 2015 (UTC))
I contributed to the "Archangels are weak, don't you agree" blog and expressed, that I dont see how Archangels are superior to Leviathans, furthermore I followed Calebchiam's intervention a week ago and Emp created a blog in order to discuss this. Since the majority agreed (You are right, I should have supported my statement on this blog as well, would further increase the majority), the case seems to be closed. Lambda1 (talk) 02:26, October 7, 2015 (UTC) 
"", "", "" : probably one person using a Virtual Private Network or some other kind of Proxy, considering that they basically readded always the same. Lambda1 (talk) 02:31, October 7, 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's the best to create a poll on the start page (Lambda1). 03:08, October 7, 2015 (UTC)  

Right. Okay, there are a few things we need to figure out:

  1. Was a proper consensus established here? If so, who was the discussion closed by and was there actually a group agreement? Consensus is not about the majority vote, so running a poll is just silly (not to mention highly abusable).
  2. If the above is true, why is there still edit-warring?
  3. Has the SPN Writer been verified? Word-of-mouth is inadequate, there has to be established and open evidence that anyone can countercheck for themselves if we are to start taking material from supposed SPN writers.

I'll look through what's happened and figure out the answers to these. Meanwhile, feel free to chip in and answer the above if you are fully up-to-date on the state of affairs at the moment (which I am not.) Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:42, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Empreyansmoke blocked an IP because he doesn't like them removing his fan theories about leviathans again. You said after 3 edits, and when I made only 3 edits removing his fan theory, 2 of which were reverting his fan theory additions, he blocked. This is not right, so can you say something to him? Im really surprised you can have an admin who tries to add theyre fan theories so much, and blocks because people disagree with the addition of fan fiction on this site. He even made more than 3 reverts himself, which is also wrong. ( 17:42, October 10, 2015 (UTC))

The IP I blocked had reverted the edit over three times, which issued a ban. Also, the majority of the users agree that this was not a "fan theory", and should be included in the articles. No, this doesn't reach a full consensus, but a couple people suggested we write a more neutral description of the weaknesses, which is what I was trying to do, but he kept reverting it, time after time. I am asking him to discuss this in the talk pages rather than reverting them every time, but he refuses. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 17:47, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I only reverted the information twice when Empreyansmoke decided that only he can edit the site because he is an admin and is better than anyone. Calebchiam, if you look at the edit history on dragons and Lilith, youll see that not only was this true, but Empreyansmoke reverted five times on both dragons and Lilith, and not once has they started a discussion about it on the talk page. If someones blocked it makes it a lot harder to discuss not adding fan theories to the site. I shouldnt even have to discuss not adding it because the person trying to add it should as that is what is changing. Empreyansmoke should not be able to do this just because he is an admin or has an account, which he keeps trying to use as a status mark that he is better, and cannot be wrong. That shouldnt matter, and is quite rude and derogatory towards others. Only what was shown on the show or said at a panel should matter. ( 18:00, October 10, 2015 (UTC))

I am not trying to say that I am better because I am an admin or because I have an account, all editors are equal. There was another unregistered user who reverted it more than three times, which I was referring to. Again, a full concerns us wasn't reached, but most people don't believe these to be "fan theories" and want them on the page. Since these two unregistered users don't agree, I am trying to add more neutral descriptions, which they keep reverting. Personally I think we should state it as facts, but since these couple of users get upset with that, I am trying to list it more neutral, but they won't let me. If they would like a different solution, I told them they should discuss it on talk pages rather than reverting it over and over.

I've removed the fan theory since the status quo before the speculation on dragons was added on September 19 did not mention angels or leviathans, which makes sense since it was not shown. Lilith's article did not mention leviathans either, but was added on September 27 in that article.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 18:38, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked the unregistered users and changed the weaknesses to possibilities, which neither suggests they aren't or are. The exact words on the pages are "Whether the Leviathans are a weakness to dragons can and is being debated." This is the only unbiased way to leave it until we reach a full consensus, which I am about to set up on another blog/talk page. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 18:41, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be stated at all since it is a fan theory unless there is a consensus about adding fan theories to pages. Calebchiam, you previously said that the articles should remain at the status quo where they were before these changes were made, but EmpreyanSmoke removes it to get his theory on the page, and tells others they should start a discussion about it, but doesn't start the discussion to add what he wants in the first place.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 18:46, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

It seems he's reverted the removal of his fan theory for an 8th time, and made it so only he can edit the page.--SPNfan7908 (talk) 18:49, October 10, 2015 (UTC)

He now locked both Phoenix and Zeus and added his fan theory back in so only an admin can remove it. Despite the fact that before the status quo before the fan theories were removed did not theorise that angels or leviathans can kill a Phoenix or Zeus. Are wikis like this about cooperating with others, or making it so that only a select few who have said they are better than others becuase they have been here longer can add in their own fan theories, which are not even solidly based in the actual show.SPNfan7908 (talk) 04:20, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Empyrean, you should not have reverted the user's edits three times. The whole point of the rule is that both users involved in the edit war are at fault for not talking things through. Even if he continues to edit it in a way you disagree with, you should leave the new edit, make him justify his actions, and then revert it only after resolution. To block the other user involved while you take no repercussions is not the way to go. I'm glad you've unblocked them now.
SPNfan7908 also seems to be right in this case. The status quo of it not being mentioned (if he is right that the article was originally in this state) is supposed to be the state of the article until resolution. It is not for you to introduce what you think is a fair description of the weaknesses. Your proposal should be placed on the talk page where the issue is being discussed, so that other users may comment on it. Calebchiam Talk 14:29, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
Also, I've taken a look at the edits mentioned. Empyrean is being fair in his description of the current situation (i.e. that the issue is being debated), so SPNFan7908 please do acknowledge that. It is unfair to label it a 'fan theory'. However, SPNFan is right that it may very well not be mentioned at all. The statement, as it stands, elucidates very little, and SPNFan is technically right that the status quo (i.e. no mention for now) should remain. Calebchiam Talk 14:36, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

I actually respond to Lambda1 on teh Phoenix and Zeus talk pages, but after Empreayan reverted others changes 7 or 8 times and locked the page with his opinion that Phoenixs or Zeus can be killed by leviathans on their, and made it so no one else could touch it. And admins dont have to follow the no more than 3 revert rule? And I dont think its being unfair to Empreyan because if someone has admin tools like this it is not fair that they abuse them like he has and block people and pages so his opinion can not be removed. That isnt fair and doesnt really go well with making wikis be cooperative and actually deter other people from editing if an admin treats them like that, and it is not right that he thinks he is better than newer users or logged out users and only he should have a say. I also responded on his consensus of the weaknesses blog, which you may also want to see. I thought I did, but I think it was teh other weaknesses one or something theres a lot. This is the new one (talk) 15:06, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

To prevent yet another edit war I’m coming straight to you on the subject of adding speculation to articles. For the past 4 years I’ve been editing here, I’ve been under the impression there was to be no speculation added; only facts. All of the sudden Empyrean is saying speculation has always been allowed to be put under the trivia section. This doesn’t make sense to me. For example I tried to remove a paragraph about the darkness possibly having influenced the leviathans. The show never addressed this, therefore I feel it shouldn’t be mentioned anywhere on the page. Another example on Eve’s page someone mentions she could have been the first leviathan. Again none of these points were mentioned or addressed on the show. Last year, I constantly kept removing speculation from the trivia on Gabriel’s page as a user kept adding that the possibility that he had a daughter. You see what I’m getting at here? For as long as I’ve been a user, whenever I’ve come across an article that has speculation I’ve quickly removed it. Are we allowing speculation to stay all together on the wiki now or did I miss something? --Bkshadows (talk)

No problem and Thank you for quickly settling the matter. Cheers indeed! --Bkshadows (talk)

Can you please show me the policy where it states we must revert the article to how it was before the debate started? Because I think that is an unfair way to solve the problem. Taking it off the page would reflect one sides argument instead of staying unbiased. Thanks. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 20:19, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Most of the articles that I come across have speculation on their trivia section, so thank you for clarifying. I'll try to remove all the speculation off the pages entirely. By the way, I left you a message about how to unbiasly edit the pages of debate, so please get back to me. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 02:27, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

This is my one and my only I.P. Just because multiple people disagree with you, that doesn't mean they're the same person. Have you ever thought that if multiple people disagree with you, not just one, but multiple people, maybe you're wrong? 15:10, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Omnipotence page Edit

Hey Calebchiam, the user Abdelfadeel continues to remove one sentence "Could God solve an unsolvable mathematical equation" from the omnipotence page. After some edit warring I tried to resolve the conflict by opening a discussion on the respective talk page, trying to explain why resolving such an equation is basically the same as lifting an unliftable stone, but he ignores this attempt. I can't further explain this topic to him without repeating myself and no other user is involved so far. Could you please intervene in some way ? Lambda1 (talk) 02:07, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as in the show the rules of math would stem from God, as he created the laws that dictate the physical universe, no math problem would be unsolvable to him. And God being able to, say, make an immovable stone and then move it, makes no sense, and should be payed no mind. That's not what omnipotence means, anyway; it means to be able to do anything that is non-contradictory, such as traversing the omniverse 800,000 trillion times in an instant. However, God cannot makes square circles, or make 99 + 1 = 101, etc. This is really simple stuff. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:22 AM, October 27th 2015
That's not right, math has nothing to do with physics, it's just used in physics. "99+1 = 101" is nothing fundamental in math, either is squaring a circle. Most people have a false understanding of math, because what's teached in the schools (simplistic, trivial basic algebra) highly differs from what's teached in the university (bare bones proving of theorems builed on axioms) Mathematical theorems are implicated from the axioms of set theory with predicate logic as meta language for deduction. People always think that 1+1 = 2 would be something you can't change, such statements are only true in certain sets (Real Numbers, Complex numbers,...), in the finite field F_2 [1] 1+1 = 0 is a true statement. However, a really simple a fundamental equation like "x = not x" (And this is indeed much more fundamental than 1+1 = 2) is always unsolvable, it is contradictionary. I explained this on the Omnipotence page. Traversing the multiverse (that's the proper term, only comic book readers use "omniverse" because they seem to don't understand or just ignore set theory) 800000*10^12 times doesn't contradict fundamental logic, so it's fine. Lambda1 (talk) 09:06, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Okay, I've had to study the epistemology of mathematics, so I suppose I know a thing or two about this. Lambda is actually somewhat right that there are other possible systems of mathematics where 1 and 1 is equal to something other than 2. Think of a world of clouds, where 1 + 1 = 1, or a world of plasma vortices, where one meeting another generates a third in its wake, 1 + 1 = 3. Our mathematical system of 1 + 1 = 2 is by no means, *the* mathematical system - a sore point for mathematicians ever since discoveries such as Godel's incompleteness theorem and the possibility of non-Euclidean geometry a description of reality (see Riemannian geometry). And yes, mathematics is often utilised in physics, but the epistemological roots of both fields are as different as light and day, as any philosopher will tell you.
As for whether God could solve an unsolvable mathematical equation...well, we really need to understand Abdelfadeel's reason for removing the sentence. I can only guess, but perhaps the phrasing might be improved? 'Can God prove an unprovable theorem?' - Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us that in any formal mathematical system, there will be mathematical statements that are not provable. But from your explanation on the talk page, it sounds like you were talking less about this and more about positives and their direct opposites (x = the negation of x), which yes, I can see the parallels to the lifting of an unliftable stone. If Abdelfadeel refuses to engage in discussion and justify his removal, then I would suggest leaving a warning on his talk page that continued removal will result in a request for a block. By default, contributing to a Wiki means being willing to justify what you're contributing, and a refusal to do so is simply harmful to collaboration. If he understands that, he should be willing to reply. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 09:20, October 29, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that physics and mathematics have the same roots, so saying that they have nothing to do with each other was a bit inaccurate from me. However, there are indeed formal system in which any statement can be proven both semantically and syntactically, especially in first order logic, as there is not only Godel's incompleteness theorem, but also a completeness theorem [2] . I choosed the "x = not x" example because it is rather easy to understand, I could have also written "Could God prove any statement in any formal system (In regarding of Godel's incompleteness theorems)?", but that would be much harder to understand for users unfamiliar with math. Abdelfadeel has stopped to remove this sentence after I left you the message, I hope he doesn't start to remove it again without arguing about. We already have both definitions of omnipotence on the page and it is explained why the first one leads to logical contradictions, so both sides should be satisfied. Thanks for your involvement ! Lambda1 (talk) 14:58, October 29, 2015 (UTC)
Okay great! Neat point about his completeness theorem, fair enough. Calebchiam Talk 15:13, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if God can solve it or not, it's irrelevant because it doesn't contradict itself. If he made it then it would. For example, if God can create an unsolvable equation then he isn't fully omnipotent because he can't solve it, if God can solve it, he's not fully omnipotent because he can't create an unsolvable equation. If he didn't actually make the equation, it doesn't matter if he can solve it or not, (though if he can't he's not omnipotent) it doesn't contradict itself.

Re: Policy enforcement Edit

Hi Caleb. When you get the chance, I could really use some help with explaining the policies of this wikia to a number of anonymous editors. I have tried to explain and rephrase over and over but they seem very adamant on insisting to put statements that are [1] not fully supported by canon and [2] only tangentially relevant to a certain article (why must we keep putting leviathan information on a page about archangels?). Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 17:04, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Well I was going to say it's the usual suspect--the archangels vs leviathan case but apparently the most recent episodes already confirmed that one is superior, so I guess it's a moot point now. FTWinchester (talk) 09:44, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

SeraphLucifer. Edit

I am having problems with the user known as SeraphLucifer. He broke the three revert rule. He keeps adding non-cannon information. He keeps saying Archangels can kill knights of hell. He doesn't even say possibly, to imply they possibly can, yet leaving the possibility they can't. He is saying they can for certain even though we've never seen a knight of hell be killed by anything but the 1st blade. I've repeatedly warned him to stop and put my reasoning for it . He refuses and just undoes my edits without argument whatsoever. His only argument, was something along the lines of "In the lore it says the archangels could kill them."

There are two major problems with this argument.  The first being: the lore greatly differs from the show. For example Lucifer is a Cherub in the lore and Michael is a seraph. Yet, in the show, both are archangels. This is just one of many differences.

Number 2: Even if we do give him the benefit of the doubt.  The Knights were created by the writers purely for plot. Their is absolutely no lore on The Knights whatsoever. So that's obviously a lie.

Please ban him as it is corrupting the wikia. Thank you. 22:27, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

If someone is blocked, there not allowed to just use another computer to get around it right. Because when Abdelfadeel forgets to sign on he is, which is blocked, but Abdelfadeel was not. When you compare with this new IP, it's to like the same area, so Abdelfadeel is using it when he again forgets to sign in at his house to avoid the block on the other IP he uses. Abdelfadeel and Seraphlucifer are both acting childish, but Abdelfadeel is blocked as and going around it still. I see that other wikis don't let this happen maybe peopls blocks aren't held if the person ignores the admin here? 02:47, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Excuse meEdit

Can I ask you for something?AlexHoskins (talk) 14:07, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

Re:Excuse meEdit

When you are not busy, could you send this PNG photo (Sokka, Suki, and Toph.png) in the Heroes Wiki ( I'd do it on my own, but my iPad doesn't download PNG photos. Sorry.--AlexHoskins (talk) 03:49, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Death Edit

Hello, the admin EmpyreanSmoke deleted my Death II page without any argumentation, though it was implied in the show that there is a new Death, especially by this statement of the reaper Billie: "You and Dean Dying and coming back again and again. The old death thought it was funny. But now there's one hard, fast rule in this universe. What lives...dies." Furthermore she said she had a message to deliver (to Sam and Dean). Therefore it is somewhat implied that there is a new Death. I am not the only one who sees it that way, actually as the episode aired, a lot of people talked about the new Death on imbd. It would be fine if EmpyreanSmoke would start argueing about it. 21:19, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed when the episode aired. In fact, it was added to the death page that there was a new death. After discussing it was concluded that there was really nothing supporting that a new death had arose. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 21:46, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't discussed at all. I can only see one reference on the talk page of the Death article and in the page history: "(cur | prev) 05:03, October 15, 2015‎ EmpyreanSmoke (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,664 bytes) (-463)‎ . . (nothing indicated that there is a new death. Billie was saying that when Death was alive, he let it slide, but now that he is gone, the reapers go by a new rule)" you deleted any reference to the new Death. Just because it is your personal opinion doesn't make it right. Reapers are just the servants of Death and follow his orders mostly (since we knew that there a rogue reapers), they won't decide to change the rules on their own. 22:39, November 15, 2015 (UTC)

EmpyreanSmoke Ban Edit

Hello Calebchiam, would you also share your thoughts regarding Lambda1 (talk) 22:12, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

I do have a question. If EmpyreanSmoke is blocked and removed as an admin. Do you have any ideas for a replacement?[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 03:01, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

I understand now. As for blocking him. I read your comment. I agree a lot of what you are saying. Admins get a LOT of flak. I get it too, and only start blocking rude or disruptive members and usual for a week, for them to cool down. But I think EmpyreanSmoke should get a longer block than 1-2 weeks. A month would be better in my opinion. Adminship is usually thankless yes. But also admins must be held to higher standard. He should've know what he signed up for. I was suspicious of the Q&A and am ashamed I let go on this long. However I will wait for the consensus. Thanks for clearing up on wikia protocol.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 03:17, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Thank you for adding your two cents. Is there someplace that we can talk in private? I realize that you probably won't want to give out your social media information, but I would like to talk to you about this in private. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 03:32, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikia Involvement Edit

Hi, it was my idea to involve the wikia staff, I mentioned the reason on the blog. Lambda1 (talk) 02:42, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

Good morning, I guess you haven't recognized my response to your statement yet Lambda1 (talk) 10:08, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes - sorry, as I added EmpyreanSmokes quotes, I just wanted to label it as a "minor edit", it seems I clicked on that "Commenting" checkbox as well, I changed it back. Lambda1 (talk) 13:40, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

EmpyreanSmoke Edit

I couldn't help but notice you talking to Empyreansmoke. He's not here anymore. I don't even think he's aware he was unblocked. 00:57, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Past tenseEdit

First ... thank you for the warm welcome. 

Shall all articles be changed in past tense? even the ones which won't change like symbols? --X47 (talk) 01:53, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

RecurringCharacters template Edit

Hello Calebchiam, could you please add the infobox category to the template , because this template has no category and since a lot of our articles use this template, we have many -- unnecessarily so. Probably, this also decreases the WAM index of this wiki. --Lambda1 (talk) 23:12, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Good evening, thanks for taking care of the templates ! I also locked the blog now, you are right - the discussion is over and any other topics belong to their respective places. --Lambda1 (talk) 04:22, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Adminship Edit

What's the verdict on Emp? Also, we're gonna need more admins? Can we recommend some please?

Please ban this user for corrupting the wikiaEdit SeraphLucifer (talk) 20:29, December 7, 2015 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Empryean's banEdit

Hey Calebchiam. I already left a message about this for Twilight Despair, but as you were the one to block Empryeansmoke, you might want to know as well. While you blocked him for two months, he is ban evading with this IP address, (proof here, and likely with this proxy located nearby him as well Also, he was rewriting an article into present tense, which is not according to policy, and adding speculation to the article and trivia section (which you previously told him should not be done). Trip391 (talk) 21:39, December 13, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Mobile Edit

Hey, Caleb! Do you know any wikia staff member we could talk to about on the mobile app? I'm kind of disappointed I could not use it to log-in and edit articles. It's basically just a reader. I wanted to talk to them if we could somehow allow us to do those things. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 03:57, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

All right. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 12:05, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Bot request Edit

Hello. I'm a bureaucrat at the Ben 10 wiki, and I'm here to help this wiki become as good as the series. I'll be editing a lot during the next few weeks, and I'd like to know if the admins here would approve of my request for a bot. Although a bot requires community approval, and not just admin approval, I think it proper to ask you guys first. I already use a bot on the Ben 10 wiki, and you can check my work there if you'd like.

Orion (T-B-C) 07:33, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

These are some of the tasks I want to perform with the bot:
  • Removing redirects from articles. By this, I mean replacing links to, say, "Dean" with links to "Dean Winchester". The same would go for double redirects.
  • Removing red links.
  • Removing broken file links.
  • Fixing grammar and typos. Some go by unnoticed by humans, but the bot can find them. I'd make sure the corrections were actual corrections, obviously, since some of the words on the wiki might not exist in its database.
Basically anything that requires small, repetitive edits across nearly every article. That's what bots excel at. Depending on how many pages there are on the wiki and how many bear any of these things, it might take more or less time to do this across the whole wiki, and I'd have to do it at least two or three times in a row, to keep up with new edits.
That said, I want to emphasize that if you (admins) aren't comfortable with my usage of a bot, you can do it yourselves. The actual operation of a bot is fairly simple once you get the hang of it.
Orion (T-B-C) 15:05, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
According to Wikia, bot requests have to go through them and only after getting community approval, unless you've already requested (and gained) the right to add the bot flag to an account. If you have, the account is BlazikenBot.
Orion (T-B-C) 05:44, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
Do you guys have a forum, or should I just create a blog?
Orion (T-B-C) 10:12, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Unorganized Templates Edit

Hi, Caleb! I've been trying to get our templates sorted out and I saw some templates, "T", "C", "Clr", etc. but I don't see the discussions for their purposes. I'm really inclined to just delete them but I wanted to make sure they are not used before I do. FTWinchester (talk) 13:02, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I thought there was a reason why they stayed like that for so long. Good to know I asked you first. I just wish it gave us some notice at elast on the exact function. I'm not exactly a coding master but I'll see what I can do. Thanks. FTWinchester (talk) 13:42, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki