Talk:Angela Orosco

Silent Hill 2 Debates
If you have a disagreement with a storyline or character development, please see here before editing and insulting the person you have a grievance with: Silent Hill 2 Debating

"Born : 4th January, Twin to Aaron Orosco"
This line seams to be 100% fan-speculation, so I removed it. If anyone can present an official source stating this, or an ingame text suggesting this, feel free to put it back. --Painocus 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Into the flames
In regards to the age-old back-and-forthing over Angela's walk up the flaming stairs, I can't help but feel that when she explains that her entire life is a living hell, it should be assumed that the flames are all in her head, or at least brought on by her own mental state, and aren't exactly representative of committing suicide. Since this is part of her life, the flames on the stair case shouldn't represent anything beyond what's normal to her; she didn't just conjur up flames to walk in and die, because they've always been there. In other words, it's unknown if she did die or not, but it's not correct to say she "probably" committed suicide. Just throwing that out there. --Faded-Myth 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The two main problems I see with the suicide theory are that if Angela needed the knife to commit suicide, then not getting the knife would prevent her from commiting suicide explaining why if she wanted to kill herself then she would have needed the knife in the first place. The best argument I can give is that within the story of Silent Hill 2 no one is ever killed by Silent Hill (excluding in-game deaths and the various endings); the only person killed was Eddie, who was killed by James. Ultimately, Silent Hill only brought each of there (Eddie, James, and Angela) delusions to life: Eddie was at the constant torment of a world inhabited by mocking shades, James had his delusions manifest into monsters, and Angela was forced to be abused by her father reshaped into a walking twisted doorman. These manifestations only torture them, they never kill them always coming close but never gaining the upperhand (suggesting that Silent Hill 2 is purely in there heads). Ultimately, The reason I can best explain that Angela did not commit suicide is because she isn't strong enough to face her trauma; going up the stairway represented that Angela wasn't able to fully deal with her guilt and troubles because trusting James ment trusting a man who defied everything she holds about men (as abuse, sexual, animals) since James was quiet the opposite of all these things, landing in silent hill because he didn't want to see his wife suffer. --StarCrafting 02:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I really wish there would have been an ending in which James left the town with Angela, it would show that they both conquered there guilt and fears; just throwing that out there. --StarCrafting 03:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too happy an ending, I think. I don't think James deserved something that clear cut, even if he was able to forgive himself. I'm personally happier with non-linear, ambiguous endings. --Faded-Myth 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone ever throw around the theory that maybe Angela has been dead the whole time? Like Lisa, she, herself, was trapped in a self-created hell because of the guilt and trauma of killing her father and possibly driving her own mother away. Unable to find her 'mama', and presuming her brother dead, maybe she killed herself in a crazed moment? Or maybe she never won the battle against her father and died, last seeing her father's body riddled with shallow knife wounds?--Skittlzchan 19:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What's so happy about leaving the town with angela? It's about the same as leaving the town with Laura, isn't it?--Dfskelleton 08:34, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

''In regards to what Skittlzchan had said, I disagree because... Well, I had that theory, but remember the underground graveyard that James visits after finding out that Maria has been killed? Angela's grave is not filled in, suggesting that she hasn't died yet. I sure hope she hasn't died. It would be really awesome if they would create a game with Angela as the main character, in which she comes to terms with her past in Silent Hill. Man, that would be awesome... Jiyanamiki 05:40, January 10, 2011 (UTC)''

Angela coin
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9885/sh2prisonercoinrevised.png http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/silent/images/7/71/SH2PrisonerCoinRevised.PNG http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/silent/images/b/bc/Angela_Fog1.jpg

The one on the left is a burned image so that you can see Angela better while the one on the right is an original screencap from the game. If James examines the coin he says the the coin sort of looks like a woman, which is basically the developers stating it is a woman. The coin is located in the room where you have a 5 minute conversation with her.

So considering the placement of the coin in Angela's room and the fact that the prisoner is a woman and that the woman on the coin has the exact same hair (shape, colour and length) it's hard to deny that the creators never intended the coin to be connected to Angela in any way. And there's the "Prisoner", which makes the coin connect even more to Angela because Angela was like a prisoner to her father. I believe that the coin definitely deserves a mention on Angela's page.

Proving that's actually Angela on the coin is a whole different story. AlexShepherd 22:21, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, then perhaps we should look into the other coins as well. Could the Old Man be Angela's father? Or James? Or Eddy? And what could the Snake represent? Xeno the Hedgehog 22:55, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Xeno. I think that the coins may be connected to the other characters too. You know how the Old Man can be found in the trash chute along with the newspaper? The newspaper talks about how a seemingly ordinary person could infact be a murderer ("He didn't look like the type of guy who would kill kids.") That's pretty self explanatory on how it's connected to James. It's possible that the Old Man may be James, although old, bald and lonely. Their faces aren't that different too if you compare them. The snake coin is found surrounded by lying figures, so I think that the snake represents Eddie's difference somehow (compare a fit football player to a fat man). I also think the lying figures surrounding the carriage were supposed to represent Eddie's peers (the ones who laughed at him). AlexShepherd 23:13, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget, the snake was found in a baby carriage, and the carriage was in a swimming pool. There's no limit to the conclusions we can draw from that. Xeno the Hedgehog 23:52, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Earth to Shepherd, the woman has a ponytail. Angela does not. Hell, the face doesn't even resemble Angela. Post an official source from Konami before adding a fan-made theory. MarkAldred 22:36, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a ponytail at all (if you mean the bulge on her head, I'm sure it's supposed to be the one on Angela's head) I think her hair looks identical to Angela's. And what do you mean her face doesn't resemble Angela's? She's wearing a blindfold so you can't see her eyes. Also what do you think about the placement of the coin and the name? I think some input from others would be helpful too. AlexShepherd 22:53, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * That'sjust bad drawing, it's more a bulge than an intended ponytail.teslashark

Donna Burke
Never knew the singer of Heavens' Divide is the voice actor of Angela. Thanks for anyone added that.

PS: Donna Burke is said to be joining the misic team of SH8, after the sucess of Peace Walker.

I really think that information should be removed from the angela page (the part when the va sang in mgs:pw) it has nothing to do with sh, or angela, and isn't important to the page. On the va page sure, but not here. Annoying Ninja

Photo
The daughter on the ripped photo is blond, had Angela dyed her hair? If she does, then this is the opposite of Heather.


 * Hair often changes as you age. For example, I was born with bleach-blonde hair, but now it's brown. I never dyed it. Or Angela could have dyed her hair - either one.Jiyanamiki 02:06, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Angela and the Cinderella Music Box.
I think there's significance to the Cinderella music box and Angela, just as there is significance with the Snow White music box and Mary, and the Little Mermaid music box and Laura. One of the messages of the music box is "Seat of the Princess who fled at midnight." This is similar to Angela because she "fled" and ran away from the abusive life she lead at home. The other message: "Twas shameful greed did stain her shoe with blood" is also similar, because in order to get what she wanted, she murdered her father, and therefore "stained" herself with blood. I think it should be added to the trivia. For or Against? Jiyanamiki 02:10, January 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * The first thing fits but I'm not so sure about the second. Angela murdered her father out of passion, not greed. In context, in one of the old Cinderella tales, one of the stepsisters cuts off a piece of her heel or something in order to get her big foot to fit into the slipper. I think it might be a bit of a stretch.... unless the greed is referring to Thomas Orosco's greed. Hmm... I'm assuming the message is referring to the greed of the the stepsisters staining [Cinderella]'s shoe with blood, if you think of Angela as Cinderella and Thomas as the greedy stepsister. I think it's notable then. 04:49, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems to make a lot more sense. It seemed to fit, except for Angela wasn't greedy. I mean, in the story, it was the stepsisters that were the greedy ones - not Cinderella. So perhaps they were referring to the stepsisters... it seems rather odd for the developers to do that, though. Maybe they meant that, even though the stepsisters were trying on the shoe, it was still Cinderella's shoe, nonetheless, and it was stained with blood. Jiyanamiki 05:06, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Bodies in the staircase


On a closer look, they are definitely men and not women. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  08:26, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hair Color Change
She may not have actually dyed her hair from blond to brown. My own hair color was bright blond as a kid and eventually darkened as I got older. It's now a somewhat mid brown color. Hers might have been similar, no? JaneTheNurse 15:07, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Angela's corpse
What proof do you have that it IS Angela's corpse in SH3?

DaRk St0rM 14:20, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. At present it only resembles Angela to a certain degree, and is nothing more than an interesting speculation. For all we know, it might actually be Angela's model, just because they wanted to save some time. Until anything official is said, it has to remain as only speculation. Mechanoise 14:31, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

The revision was already undoed I think.

DaRk St0rM 14:34, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

This will settle things. It is Angela's model, but it's supposed to be a different woman. HeatherMorris6806 15:17, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's cool that he always answers questions. Does he know whether Angela actually did die in SH2? Angela's status in this website is listed as death by suicide but we never see her die in the game. I know the official SH2 novel has her die but the SH novels aren't 100% canon. They say Cybil survived, Angela was raped by her brother and Harry's wife died in a car crash. --Zednark 17:31, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I'll ask him that too. Back to the corpse, I think it is an early concept model like the one in the Gallery which can explain why the clothes and hair are different. HeatherMorris6806 17:43, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like official confirmation because I know Riley will revert my edit if I list Angela's status as unknown without proof. Also, big thanks for asking Ito about the corpse. --Zednark 17:46, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. I would like to modestly point out that I 'called it' being a modified model ;) Mechanoise 22:22, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

@Zednark Yeah, I asked Masahiro and Angela did die. HeatherMorris6806 10:47, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know. --Zednark 12:37, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

@Zednark I'm hurt you would say that DX, if I didn't remove it someone else would ya know?— Riley Heligo  10:56, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Angela's age
When is Angela's age given? She's said to be in her late teens, but it looked to me like she was in her twenties.Arkimedes 17:24, June 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Book of Lost Memories. She was purposely designed to look older than her actual age. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  20:31, June 19, 2012 (UTC)



Depression
Being depressed is not about being filled with sadness. It is when you lack emotion. The only thing you feel is emptiness inside.


 * Sadness is a symptom and sign of depression. Wikipedia says "people with depressed mood can feel sad". — Alex Shepherd   ツ  11:19, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Player opinion
I've recently reverted an edit regarding how player's perceived her. While interesting, as a wiki it's supposed to have non-biased or opinionated content. Player opinion shouldn't be on a mainspace page, if you wanted to make your own page by listing player opinion on the character go ahead, but keep it off mainspace pages.

If we allowed a specific opinion on certain characters, such as Angela being listed as "insane" or something along those lines, then we'd have other things like how Walter is a "crazy man who believes an inanimate place is his mother", which I've personally seen people call him but I'm not going to add it to the page. Likewise for Angela, yes it comes off as insensitive but we've gotta keep clear of stuff like that. The wiki isn't someone's personal blog.  Riley Heligo The Forgotten Sinner 23:45, February 27, 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That statement came off as being preachy and opinionated. It was designed to tell other people how they are and are not allowed to feel about the character, while adding in preachy commentary about how mental illness is perceived - something that keeps popping up in inappropriate places on this wiki over the last couple of years.  AlessaGillespie  Talk   Contributions  00:12, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think player opinion is irrelevant at all on wikis, and I think it can be used in appropriate ways, and removing anything resembling "players have noted/many players theorize/players have uncovered/etc" is frustrating and aggravating. There's a strong difference what was on Angela's article versus something such as "I feel bad for Angela" or "Angela should have had more screentime", etc. Video games are a medium which involve player feedback, and trying to remove all/any reference to the player is nonsensical. Basically, I think you should know the difference between "showing an opinion of someone" versus "being an opinion of someone". I think something such as "many players believe Angela is crazy" should be allowed, while "I believe Angela is crazy"/"Angela is crazy" should not be allowed. The former is not like "someone's personal blog", while the latter is. See where I'm coming from? I don't think that statement was "preachy" or "opinionated" at all, and no, it was NOT designed to tell players what they're allowed/not allowed to feel, it was just a warning and something notable people should keep in mind. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  00:21, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * The thing is, wikis are for factual information, not personal opinions. Unless a dev stated in an interview that she's crazy, that tidbit does not belong. Dragging in the bit about views on mental illness turns it from just a user adding opinionated content into yet again preaching about your personal problem with others' opinions on mental problems. Please, keep that stuff off the wiki's articles.  AlessaGillespie  Talk   Contributions  01:22, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * The statement wasn't opinionated at all. I'll break down each of the two parts:


 * "First-time players of Silent Hill 2 have called her "insane" and "crazy"" - This is a fact and can be sourced. This is not merely an opinion. This is a fact that describes an opinion people have. Would you consider "Many cultures have revered Jesus", or "People have been shown to be afraid of spiders" or "Many people enjoy swimming as entertainment" to be opinions which don't belong on wikis? You wouldn't. So then how is this part any different?


 * "which could be seen as insensitive and undermining the issues at hand, as well as the way mentally ill people are viewed." - This is common sense and not stated as an "opinion". If it was "which IS insensitive", then it would qualify as opinion. However, because it is "which COULD BE SEEN as insensitive", then it's no longer an opinion.


 * Semantics and the phrasing of language can make the difference between what is an "opinion" and what isn't. And I argue that the phrasing of it was completely neutral and does not qualify as an opinion. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  01:56, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

This is one of those, at least in my opinion, on whether or not it is NEEDED in the article. We cover mental health state clearly on her page. Do we really need to discuss how first time players felt about her character? It's evident she's "crazy" when you play. I'd rather NOT argue about semantics, though you are right that saying COULD changes the entire meaning, but still. For now, I'd prefer this information be off the page, and as our main crat, Alessa, has spoken on this as well, I think we can safely put this issue to bed. If such a thing comes up again, leave a message on her or I's wall, Alex, and let's see if we can come up with a reasonable conclusion that can make both sides happy. Enjoyableari (talk) 03:18, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Me and Ari have talked it out a bit, and she wants to find an ideal compromise between us all. My ideal compromise is that I'd like something on the article that at least mentions the dangers and consequences of labeling Angela as "crazy" or "insane" and why such terms are harmful towards the way mentally ill people are perceived. After me talking with Ari, Ari is now fine with the way it is currently worded, but would prefer it being a Trivia point. We'd also like Jillian's input, and if Jillian is willing to re-add an edited version back, or simply make it a Trivia point. If Jillian does not respond back soon, then me and Ari plan on re-adding it to Trivia. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  04:26, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree. This wiki is not Alex's personal soapbox for his opinions on the cultural perception of mental health. We will NOT use the wiki as a vehicle to preach personal beliefs to the public.  AlessaGillespie  Talk   Contributions  05:19, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not just an "opinion" of mine and it's not about me "soapboxing". It is a literal cultural phenomenon which actually exists, and I think it's very important, notable and aspect of how Angela's character is received. I don't see how a rational and reasonable human being would read that and view it as being overly "opinionated" or "preachy" or trying to preach "personal beliefs". In my eyes, it's a completely neutral and very important analysis of the way Angela's character is received. Can we compromise and try to reword it? How about this?

"Angela may be interpreted as "crazy" or "insane" by those unfamiliar with her backstory, although this only scratches the surface."


 * It seems non-opinionated and fair enough. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  06:01, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Can I just throw my 2 cents in here? Angela is batshit crazy. She (however justifiably) stabbed her father and brother to death after years of incestual abuse. That would be enough to drive most people insane. But the real thing that marks her as insane is her fascination with suicide. Sane people (generally) don't tend to want to kill themselves. -- Murphy Pendleton  :D  08:16, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * This wiki is about a fictional video game series, not cultural issues that bother you. How other people perceive her is none of your business, nor the wiki's. This certainly is not the place to bring something like that up. Again, unless the developers have commented on it, it doesn't belong on her page.  AlessaGillespie  Talk   Contributions  09:49, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * This wiki is about a series that addresses real-life issues with a heavy focus on mental health concerns and their portrayal and reception in society. You may say "How other people perceive her is none of your business, nor the wiki's", however, this is merely your opinion, and I think it is acceptable for a wiki to comment on reception as long as the tone is neutral. There is no god-given purposes of what a wiki "should" and "shouldn't be" - wikis can be literally anything we want them to be, and it seems like you're just trying to force your own interpretation of what a wiki should be onto others. Wikipedia, for example, has Reception sections on characters.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Redfield
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji_Tatsumi
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shion_Uzuki


 * Are you against the inclusion of anything resembling "(character name) could be seen as (adjective) by players"? According to your logic, why don't we erase every symbolism section on monster articles without a clear developer quote? Why don't we erase the symbolism sections for Prisoners, Gum Head, Wall Corpse, etc? After all, that's how the monster is "received" and "interpreted" by players. Where do you plan on drawing the line here? — Alex Shepherd   ツ  15:21, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am against including anything telling other people how they should perceive a character. It's better to tell readers the facts surrounding her, and let them make up their own mind. Though my main issue with the initial text was that it was clearly an attempt to preach at others about how you think they should feel about mental illness, something that absolutely needs to stop showing up in articles. The series may deal with real world issues, but that doesn't give you leeway to insert your personal issues into an article. Whether other fans think she is "crazy" or not does not matter to a wiki article. Let them make up their own minds, and then discussing it on a forum or a blog or something. But not in a wiki article.


 * Also, there's a difference between suggesting symbolism and metaphorical content for monsters,
 * and telling people what to think about a character.  AlessaGillespie  Talk   Contributions  20:28, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, it wasn't really meant to "tell people how they should feel", due to the usage of "could be seen as" instead of "is", and it was focused more to make people think and consider the language used to describe people like Angela. If you disagree, then let's agree to disagree, since we all have different ideas and standards of what makes something sound overly-preachy and opinionated.
 * Regardless, MurphyPendle re-added it back, but adjusted the language a bit in an attempt to make it more neutral. It should be satisfactory and neutral now. Can you please compromise with that, and we'll call it a day for now? Also, are you back from your break now, or just stopping by? — Alex Shepherd   ツ  20:48, February 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, seriously? You don't revert edits and "better to ask for forgiveness" No, that shit is NOT going to fly here. You discuss it with the admins here on the talk page. If that doesn't work, then a final decision is either made by myself or Alessa IF she feels so inclined to do. We are all hardly on as a cohesive team, and I will not have that sort of thing going on. If you see admins discussing an issue THE SAME DAY YOU TRY TO REVERT SOMETHING, I will take that as a sign that you do not care what they are saying (regardless if you're just a member or an admin yourself) and you will find yourself either banned, demoted, or no longer allowed to edit said page.


 * As for the edit itself, after a lot of review, and discussing with Alessa, i'm inclined to see HER side as well. We are not a podium for this sort of thing. I did not mind it as a simple trivia fact, but if we are going to piggy back it with an ideology and social movement, we will end up right back in December of 2015 and I know no one wants to be there again.  We will get bombarded with trolls and all sorts of mess. I don't want it. I don't have time for it, and frankly, neither should anyone else.


 * My last rollback on the page will stand, and I want nothing more added on that page about this discussion. We can discuss it again at a later date if you feel inclined, but this is final. If I find anything else (and I will be checking frequently) on that page, or on any of the other pages in regards to similar issues, I will lock the pages.


 * Delegate those discussions to the forums for now, UNTIL I say otherwise. I am sorry, but that's the way it is going to be now. Enjoyableari (talk) 01:40, March 1, 2017 (UTC)


 * So what's your verdict? Neither the original statement or Murphy's revised version are satisfactory, even as a trivia point? No one's trying to push a "revolution" or anything, and I feel Murphy's version was totally neutral and valid information. I just need to see who's in favor of what. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  02:05, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Okay Araceli, first up I want you to take a big step back for a second. If I'm completely candid, I take issue with your dictatorial tone, towards both myself and Alex. To be clear, I do not recognize your authority to just veto matters simply because "you want nothing more added" to the discussion. We get it, you're a Crat now - which I personally think is rather silly given that none of the other admins nor regular users were consulted - and this comes with a few extra privileges. That doesn't mean you own this site, you aren't the boss of anyone and if you pretend that you are... Well, then you're no better than Alex during the dreaded incident of December of 2015. If you continue to act in this demeaning manner, I will have no choice but to report your asshattery to wikia. Also, I feel like your use of caps is needlessly confrontational, but I'm not going to tell you how to type cos I'm not the boss of you.

Now, onto the pertinent issue: I have very little free time nowadays being a full time Uni student, so I apologize for not waiting for peer consensus before posting my edit. I did so because, as Alex said, I believed the version I typed out was completely neutral. It certainly wasn't attempting to "piggy back with an ideology and social movement" (are you aware of how ridiculous you sound when you say that?), rather it was making the very true assertion that "crazy" doesn't really encompass the entirety of Angela's identity. Even if it did, there are better, more precise medical terms one could use to describe her condition. Alex was making the (valid, I think) point about how in this instance, lexical semantics can do a disservice to her character in the way that she is fobbed off and placed under the umbrella term of "insane," when in reality there is a lot more nuance to her characterization. As we know from the game, there are many different kinds of insanity. I see no harm in pointing this out, and it is clear that Alex doesn't either. Given that he also doesn't disagree with my rewording, Jill's main point of contention was with Alex's initial wording and your proclamation that you don't mind it as a "simple trivia fact".... It looks like we are in consensus! Excellent! I'll add it to the trivia section. -- Murphy Pendleton  :D  15:47, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Murphy, report me if you feel the need to do so. But like it or not, I am a crat here, and if push comes to shove, and I have to make a decision that supercedes, I will. I do not care about personal feelings behind it. That's called being a "boss" and in the eyes of the wikia format, that's essentially what a crat is. I do not appreciate the threat behind it, but go ahead and try it.

Alex and I spoke about this matter the other night privately, and in the regular chat. This isn't so much on Alex but on YOU for going behind the backs of your fellow admins (Riley and Alessa) and reverting their edit. THAT is the issue. I also use caps for emphasis, so let's not be so sensitive about such a thing. That is my writing style, has always been my writing style and will continue to be my writing style.

My piggyback reference is in regards to something about Alex's motives in putting such a thing. This is not just from me, but from Alessa as well. And as Alex stated previously, I had no original issue with the point so long as it remained IN THE TRIVIA SECTION. Your edit, however, did NOT have it there. And after further reflection, having it there could open a can of worms to other such instances. I don't want that, and frankly, neither do any of the other admins after speaking with THEM as well.

The fact of the matter is, you have been extremely confrontational on many occasions both when I was a simple admin, and now as crat. You will not add it, as I've already (and Riley and Alessa had before) stated it WILL NOT BE ADDED to the page. If you have added it, I will remove your admin status for one week. I rather not do that.

This is how it will be. And Frankly, considering how everyone else seems to be in consensus BUT you, I see no reason to change it because you find it bullying and dictatorial. Enjoyableari (talk) 16:11, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

First, I would just like to point out that I have not violated Wikia's rules in such a way that would merit a removal of my administrator privileges. These are the grounds for dismissal:

* The rights were abused. * A user is inactive and the community asks for the removal. * Community request, after a discussion among more active users. * They are found to be editing abusively as an alternative account (sockpuppet). * They have used their rights to edit the interface into something very unsuitable. * They have broken Fandom's Terms of Use.

This just proves that you've let your "power" go to your head.

Like every dictator in the history of the world, you are using misguided examples of past catastrophes to preserve the status quo - your status quo. The thing you fail to understand in your use of hyperbole is that this isn't that much of an issue - it surely has absolutely zero potential to be as contentious as claiming hidden foreskin symbology is littered throughout the games. If you think I'm going to sit idly by and watch you posture on the internet, you are mistaken. So yes, I will report you. Don't take it as a threat, take it as a promise.

Contrary to your claims, this actually isn't what Crats are for. Crats are mainly there to make admins, and like admins they're supposed to act as gatekeepers and guides. If shit does actually hit the fan in the community (like a certain incident a few years back) then, and only then should crats step in to take control - and even then, only temporarily, so the community has the time and peace to come to a decision.

Now, Jill didn't revert my edit despite her clearly having seen it. I'd take this to mean she was okay with it, but just to be sure I'd like her to come here and clearly state her opinions on the matter. Similarly, Riley had not responded to my edit (although obviously his stance is now clear) so you can't use him to weight your argument.

If I'm being confrontational, it's because I'm seeing something I don't like. I will make no apologies for speaking my mind, ever. When it comes to you Araceli, I could see this side of you even when you were but a simple admin. Vindication is bittersweet.

The fact of the matter is, as a humble editor, simple admin or almighty bureaucrat, we all have voices that deserve to be heard. You can't silence anyone and the fact that you are trying just goes to show what kind of person you are. So, what we clearly need to do now is have a community vote on the issue. If the majority decide that the material has no place on the article, I will gladly accept this decision. I will not accept you telling us what is and isn't going to happen on a public place such as this. -- Murphy Pendleton  :D  16:50, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Can we please try to focus on the actual argument, rather than the people involved? Ari and Murphy are both my pals, and I don't want to have to pick sides or see you two fight. My sentiment is that Murphy's version was completely neutral and valid and non-opinionated and non-offensive, and Ari/Jillian are trying remove it based on the "invisible philosophy" involved, despite that the actual content is perfectly valid, so I think this is unfair and ridiculous. I promise it won't "open a can of worms which leads to other instances". As Murphy said, I agree that Murphy's revised version is non-contentious. — Alex Shepherd   ツ  17:08, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Three admins now have said they don't want that statement on the article. The discussion should be closed, except Murphy and Alex keep arguing. Alex himself stated why he put that tidbit here in this very discussion, "It is a literal cultural phenomenon which actually exists, and I think it's very important, notable and aspect of how Angela's character is received." In other words, he wants to talk about cultural issues that bother him and loosely tie it to a fictional video game character. That is not going to happen. I fully support Ari's decision to remove Murphy's admin status. Over the past year, he has been confrontational every single time he shows up. He has shown his maturity level through arguing over everything, making edits that were so similar to Alex's that it looked like Alex had been handed his account for awhile, and repeatedly calling me by a name that I have stated I do not like, in an effort to piss me off (it worked). This is why I do not like his behavior any more than Ari does. So now you have two crats who agree on that.  AlessaGillespie  Talk   Contributions  19:49, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

As Alessa has now spoken, and has said she agrees with me to remove Murphy's admin ship (which I flat out stated was NOT permanent) and that the other issue will not be put on the page and not to be discussed until later. This matter is officially closed. If you want to discuss the mental health issues of Angela, or any other character (as I'm sure there's plenty of them) then go make a forums page.

I've been in contact with the remaining active admins. I will try, in some way, to get ahold of the inactive ones to figure out a way to remain in constant contact. But I will say this about Murphy: your vindication may seem bittersweet, but your removal holds absolutely no emotion for me, even with you being a bit of a pain admin wise since I became an admin. Your dislike for me was also VERY clear when I was a simple member, and then chat mod. But I do not color my decision with emotion. I could care less if you stay as admin after the week is up, or if you take your toys out of the sandbox.

What I did was for the good of this wiki, and because that's what you do when people do not stop when they are told to stop. Now, go ahead, and plan to carry out your revenge (which are YOU aware of how petty that seems considering this is just a wiki and not real life?). The rest of the admin and i will continue doing what we do best. Work for the betterment of this wiki. Enjoyableari (talk) 20:23, March 1, 2017 (UTC)