FANDOM

Love Robin

Councilor Galactic Overlord
  • I was born on March 7
  • My occupation is Mother, Wife, Therapist, Paralegal, Internet Djinn, 13th Muse, Fanfic Writer
  • I am from the Better Half of the populace
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Your point of putting Candidate for Deletion on the page of Chris, is what i would say, is invalid. He's not just a simple jerk character. He puts people on the show in risks of deaths for fame and glory as host. He's not truely evil, but he's selfish and antagonistic enough to qualify as a villain

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • All of which makes him possibly an Antagonist. A Jerk, sure, but the rules say that neither is enough.

      TV show hosts do not operate in a vacuum. They have Bosses. Who approve what is done. So unless it is a case of wicked/evil bosses giving him the go ahead, he cannot be wicked/evil and not only stay on the air but come back season after season.

        Loading editor

    • In case you didn't hear what i said, he tortured them, and put them in risks of death, which makes them more than just a jerk. That being said, he has an "evil" side to him, but it's pretty twisted too.
        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Love your Kim Possible...Villain blog! Terrific stuff!

      Loading editor
    • It illustrates that anyone can be made to seem like a villain if all that is focused on is their faults. Obviously she is not a villain. Leastwise not outside The Worst Possible Sitch.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Let me start with a minor nitpick, listing I will do anything as a hobby is a massive fail. You seem intent on Kim being a lesbian in the trivia. Now the major one none of the situations are everything close to what's being argued. Has Kim ever attempted to blow up INNOCENT people, did she ever abandoned a child when she was taking care of said child, did she ever break up a relationship for shits and giggles. 

      Loading editor
    • It's not supposed to be illustrative or parallel of specific points being discussed elsewhere.

      The POINT is, if all you look at and emphasize are a character's faults, ANYONE can be made to seem like a villain.

      And that is what I've done with the blog. I took a GOOD and HEROIC character and only emphasized her faults to make her seem like a villain. And if that page were "live" on this wikia, *I* would tag it for deletion.

        Loading editor
    • Love Robin wrote:
      It's not supposed to be illustrative or parallel of specific points being discussed elsewhere.

      The POINT is, if all you look at and emphasize are a character's faults, ANYONE can be made to seem like a villain.

      And that is what I've done with the blog. I took a GOOD and HEROIC character and only emphasized her faults to make her seem like a villain. And if that page were "live" on this wikia, *I* would tag it for deletion.

      But we haven't done that ever at most the people we included were simply jerks and we deleted them ages ago except for Greg heffely who just got deleted. Kim's analogy fails because she is a heroic character fights Villains.

        Loading editor
    • [chuckle]

      Of course it FAILS… I *made it* that way! That's the entire point of it as an illustrative sample.

      And yes, it *is* done. The "evidence" for Sam Puckett and Sheldon Cooper are such fault-finding.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I'll give you a return as soon as Robinsonbecky gives me an answer. For the time being I have reduced the block time.

    As for the rules, we had a page to explain villainous jerks linked in the rules, but since it got deleted when we started moving pages to the Evil Wiki and admin unlinked it. I restored such page under the Villains Wiki namespace and linked it back on the rules, so you might want to give it a read.

      Loading editor
  • I thought I'd answer your message here to keep it separate from the blog I wrote.

    I stop here occasionally, but this was prompted by what's been happening on two other wikis started by the same guy. We wanted his own version of the Villains Wikia, but went for the broader category of antagonists, and created two nearly-identical wikis on that same subject. Then he left.

    As a result, the people who went to those wikis duplicated efforts, but some of them contradicted themselves, saying different things about the same character on each wiki and changing their mind almost daily. Categories on them are a mess. It's like they said, "Ooh, I think I'll add whatever grandiose category I can think of to fit my opinion of this character". And kept on clicking on "Add Category" as many times as they could, so that some pages have more categories than the body of the page has words to describe the character.

    The other part of this is what I've called "antagonist fussing" and is called "abuse of the antagonistic scale" here. In short, for one character, people came up with 161 different ways of calling him an antagonist, fighting and getting into edit wars, and contradicting themselves by changing that rigid description almost every time they edited the page.

    All of that has spilled over to other wikis, including this one, so the efforts I am making to help get this cleaned up and cut back on the ridiculousness are being shared here.

      Loading editor
    • If I can help in anyway, I trust you know you can depend on me.

      [chuckle] Here, one of the issues I'm finding is the addition of non-Villains and mixing in Antagonists which are not Wicked or Evil, one of their rules' definitions for inclusion.

      Many are also going out of their way to emphasize every fault and bad trait to force a character into the mold of villainy. To spotlight this I wrote this blog.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi.

    I was wondering about something.

    I know the cleanup that is occurring right now, and I don't intend to interfere in any way (since let's face it, a lot of the articles and categories just needed to go), but I was wondering if we should add some characters to Villains Wiki?

    Namely, I was thinking of adding Neo, Trinity, Morpheus, Merovingian, Persephone, and Architect from The Matrix, possibly several other characters from that series, onto here. However, I need to make sure they actually fit here, because some commentary, which even included statements made by the writers themselves as well as people within the cast, strongly suggests that the characters are villains and not just antagonists, with the first three being villain protagonists (far beyond anti-hero status), and I don't want to add them and get them deleted if they failed to match up to the new rules (the old rules made it problematic for them to be added in). I'm not planning on doing anything like your Kim Possible blog implied, but I also don't want to omit anything where the writers made pretty clear they are supposed to be villains (and even praise them for being villains).

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • I do know the Wachowskis lifted plenty of stuff from Jean Baudrillard, who explicitly referred to himself as a terrorist and promoted nihilism, and they also used Rage against the Machine's "Wake Up" which has a lot of lyrics openly preaching for violent overthrow (and their other songs aren't much better either, as they actually say they should do similar acts to the Weathermen Underground).

        Loading editor
    • That may all be.

      I tend to use canon to fuel my analyses of franchises, and less so "Words of God". Because if they wanted their work to say the same thing as their Words, they should have made certain it did so. *I* certainly strive to do so my stories.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I'd actually argue he might stay because he's portayed at first as a villain then a necessary evil to keep balance in the universe. He's a very affable character but then decides before his apparent death tried to have Dean kill Sam. He's not a generic villain but meant to represent a character who has no problem with killing though he does good he's an amoral entity who claims he'll reap God last.

      Loading editor
    • Thing about depictions is things unfold. We learn more about characters. Death also helped the Winchesters even though not doing so would have meant more "business" for him.

      He is a Force of Nature. More than that, if not hyperbole on his part, he is older than God. So should even be above the concepts of Good and Evil.

      I suppose it comes down to if his actions are truly Wicked and or Evil, or a Nature Beyond Our Ken.

      Shouldn't this be on Death's Talk Page?

        Loading editor
    • I plan to but figured I'd also let you know. That and it seems my mobile is having a hard time making the talk page due to it not yet existing. I'll try to add it tomorrow when I can use a desktop.

      So till then I'll give a small counter argument: That said we have other characters who are "beyond good and evil" to us humans (ex: most God's in Lovecraft stories) and he basically was a villain who overall redeemed though some death he caused doesn't seem like it was necessary as a restraunt was shown with corpses if I remember right, though we can't say for absolutely sure it was purpose or him just not all that caring with the effect he caused. And once he helped due to being bound by a spell.

        Loading editor
    • Fair enough.

      I'd say most of the Lovecraftian Elder Gods qualify because they seek the undoing of all (life) as we know it. Possibly they also qualify because that is the expected outcome of those summoning them.

      Whereas this incarnation of Death, when not geased, was neutral on doing his job. Like the Reaper Billie. She does not intend to kill, she only intends to see that when next Sam and Dean die they stay dead.

        Loading editor
    • With Death I definitely see arguments both ways as like you said he is rather neutral in most cases and probably the most arguable on whether he is a true villain or not within his show.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I ask you for the next time you edit the CSS Media, please, contact me, I'd hate if some kind of bug happened in that place and there is some kind of malfunction in the Wiki because there are many types of glitches there due to the Codes; this happens all the time. Thank you.

      Loading editor
    • Well, with your recent "I'm leaving Villains" messages, it was felt you were gone and unreachable. Or how long it would take for you to respond. It was felt urgent enough for LucidPigeons to grant me temp-admin to do it.

      I admin/'crat over 30 wikias. I may not know the full ins and outs of JS and CSS to build a unique ground-up dynamic theme like you've done here, but nonetheless I certainly know my way around CSS and JS enough to identify troublesome lines code and how to make either substitutions or disable by remarking them out.

      Also, easy to simply UNDO anything which might go wrong. Unlikely with a simple image substitution.

        Loading editor
    • You don't need to be so complex. When I made that blog I was saying I "was thinking in leave" since I going to start my own business. Btw, I'm watching the wiki for 8 hours, only to check that things are going well. So, even if I'm not editing, I still watch the Wiki.

      Good, you're admin in 30 wikis (despite it's not really matter). And like I said, thank you.

        Loading editor
    • And thanks for removing the GIF.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I've overviewed many general points made in our discussions and adviced some users to look over your blog in a blog I've made here. I'd like feedback at the earliest opportunity.

    Thank you.

      Loading editor
    • Overall it looks great!

      First major point, the link to my blog does not work. It should be [[User blog:Love Robin/Category Catacombs]]… Note that "user blog" can be either with space or underscore between them. When a link is done correctly regardless of namespace, the auto-complete should popup.

      Now that you've broken the ice and granted me a sense of legitimacy, I can chat with the other Admins.

      Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • That likely broke as a result of me linking it via an external link rather than simply linking it by your namespace. Regardless, it's fixed now.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Sorry I've been so irritiable.

    I've been spedning days trying to defend my catagory, so I'm a bit on edge.

      Loading editor
    • I understand and can appreciate your passions. All I can recommend for you—and any in a similar position—to make a frank assessment of if there truly is enough from any given franchise to support enough well-made and informative pages to launch a new category.

      At least currently. In the case of AoT you can take heart as the story is still unfolding and with several spin-offs so if not right now, perhaps next year there will be!

        Loading editor
    • I do have a pasison for the series.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.