You literally locked this page for no reason. Is it because of the antagonist/protagonist problem? If so, then I can discuss it with you here, as the Animator is pretty clearly the protagonist of the second part.
Notice how in the second part, the Chosen One attacks the computer instantly, when the Animator didn't do anything yet. The first part was an Animator playing with his creation. The second part is an Animator simply trying to protect his computer. This kinda justifies him in the third part, too. He's again simply protecting his computer. The fourth part is tricky, as both sides overreacted.
He absolutely had reasons to fight. The Animator was going to enslave him as a pop up blocker.
Also, the Animator in the fourth part terminated the stick figures without provocation. It's understandable why he was wary of them, but the Second Coming had no ill will against the Animator until he started the fight by (seemingly) killing his friends.
Except the Chosen One attacked instantly. Unless you're telling me he can read minds from another world and figured everything out in less then a second, he didn't know that he was meant to be a pop-up blocker. His second rampage is justified, but the first one isn't.
The Chosen One already seems intelligent and aware of its surroundings following its creation, as shown with how it exploits the various programs on the computer. It stands to reason that, while he may not have known exactly what the Animator had in store from, he knew it wasn't good and wanted to escape to maintain his free will.
And he figured it out in literally one second or less? I checked it, he powers up barely a second after having a name given. Compared to his experience with programs, when he had a few seconds to learn about them.
He already was aware of his surroundings when he was first brought to life. I;m not saying he's omniscient but it stands to reason by that line of logic he knew something about the Animator's intentions also.
You remove catagories that you say don't qualify and neglect to edit the Type of Villain section, like that matters nothing, leaving mass confusion. Like what you did to like Ab Cross for example. You removed the Psychopath catagory and never bothered to deal with editing the Type of Villain section while he was under Egotistical Psychopath.
You even say that I must add cagagories that essemble the truth of the villain, without any clue that the catagory is indicating the truth, like what you did to Eric Cartman. You do the exact same thing too.
You have also been saying that other YouTube channels on the trivia on each page are popular, which is clearly not true. Notoriety is what these obtuse channels have in epochs like these. They have no right to exist in great web pages like these, there other better sole standing people enthusiastic in embracing their personal and unique opnion in a magnanimous way than all the grabby, snobby, harsh and last but most importantly hypocritical babblemouths on the internet, pushing boundries downs.
The Psychopaths category was removed automatically via AWB as part of a mass cleanup of pages in the category via AWB. We did our best to ensure pages that did qualify were kept out of the crossfire, but some may have slipped through. You are free to re-add the category to any pages that can be demonstrated to qualify.
South Park is a show with "negative continuity" as TVTropes likes to call it, where characters' motifs and actions can vary wildly between episodes and sometimes contradict each other. For characters who take a different role every episode, we have the "ensemble" category. The only categories that should be added to Eric Cartman are categories that describe fundamental parts of his character. Categories that only apply for him in a single episode will be removed.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say for your last point. Can you elaborate?
I'm refferring to the WatchMojo. I've seen you and another user disagreeing of whether we should have their rankings and ideals on this website. And if you believe their fame is a popularity, you better think again. That guy you were speaking to is right. If you watch enough clips and compare them with the previous videos, you will know that they are grabby and covet only to be the best. They push people's interest down with their chutzpah attitude and like they are so perfect, even trying to embrace a specific object in other of their clips just to embrace that specific object like it's a precious relic from a golden era. When it's a specific catagory of the video clip they add unrelated, well sometimes it's related but they narrate it in the wrong way. They focus on to make sure people gain 100 percent enthusiasm and agree with their ideals and opinions and those who disagree are complete fools. That fame is called notoriety. You shouldn't be listening to the exact everything a certain channel or website says. There are plenty of other better channels that are more magnanimous and have a unique opnion. Listen to them instead of some highly political savage fools. Or most likely try to be aware that Social Media is what is causing people's dreary depression these dark times.
I'm sorry but what about my vote was invalid? I thought we had to give our opinion and whatnot? I didn't know we had to write a paper explaining our reasons against it. I'm new to this so you mind please explaining to me why my against the vote was invalid?
Your vote didn't have anything to do with the quality of the villain. Saying you don't like him because he's "small time" or because he's too much of an anti-villain is the same as downvoting a candidate because they murdered someone or because they're Pure Evil. It has nothing to do with how well written you thought the villain was or anything like that.
Pardon, I have been informed by a user you told them that DLC/official supplementary materials content to the main story could not be considered cannon of a character. I am just checking as to if this is a policy you enforce.
X-Mutant, but please do not do anything in retaliation, they were asking to delete DLC based villains/heroes solely from DLC, which another admin (you) said could not be considered cannon. Any idea what they were referring too, or is this a case telephone?
Hmm, I will make it clear to them you have no issues of any kind with DMC. I am not sure where they got that idea, but as long as we have a clear view on policy that will allow them to edit effectively. Thank you.
For the past few weeks or so now, you and Ordeaux haved harbored a silly rebellion complex towards the subpage layouts on the Wiki. In Ordeaux's case, it's been the headings/subheadings. And in your case, it's been against the introductions. I have already told Ordeaux to knock it off, so please do me a favor and do the same. The subpages have had these introductions for a while now and there is no point in removing/reducing them, since they don't actually make the pages look worse. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
And before you say "they're unnecessary", the existence of them does not justify going on a massive editing rampage to revert something so minor (in fact, it's a waste of time). Save the mass cleanups for stuff that is actually much more worthwhile i.e. renaming categories or reverting category abuse. Point is, leave the subpages as they are and move on.
Does this count characters who were killed off, but returned suddenly? For example, Rob Hawthorne from Hollyoaks supposedly died after falling off a boat in the middle of the ocean in October 1998, but returned in an episode in September 1999. He was not revived or anything, just that the show lead viewers to believe that he had died (in fact, the producers did kill off the character until they decided to bring him back).