Hello, earlier today I was looking through the old forum posts and blogs about Brickimedia and realized that it was a very good idea and that it was a shame it was hacked. I believe that if it had not been hacked we would still be there and that /most/ of the community would have moved. Then, I found out that Brickimedia was currently in Open beta and that I could <span class="plainlinks">[meta.brickimedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin/signup make]</span> an account, so I did. I then discovered how good it looked, the blogs were great (we have the ability the give blog comments kudos, as known as likes), the chat is good (yes, not ''exactly'' like the chat here, however, HTML use in chat is pretty great!), also we will still have forums. Please review the See Also and the Pros and Cons sections.

Pros and Cons

Pros

*Ability to keep ''all'' features he have here

*Choosing our own ads - Choosing our own ads are a great function as when you are logged out of wikia, as many of our readers are since they are under 13, it looks horrid, huge ads everywhere and video ads that auto-play.

*More customizable than Wikia - We will be able to customize our skin much more than we can with Oasis and add more functions

*Ability to use JS that would violate Wikia's TOU - Such as Jammers

*All the same user rights as this wiki with the ability to customize them and create more if needed

*A better badge system that promotes good editing habits

*Extensions - We can add MediaWiki extensions if we please

*No Darwin - I know many of you hate Wikia's new Project "Darwin" coming [[w:c:community:User blog:BertH/Fluid layout is arriving on December 4|December 4^th]]. If we move to Brickimedia we will be able to chose if we want something instead of it being forced on us

Cons

*Losing our current skin - Our current skin on Wikia, Oasis will be lost. However, this could possibly be a Pro as, (I have mentioned earlier), it has many limitations

*No [[w:c:community:VSTF|VSTF]] - Not a problem as Brickimedia will have their own "Janitors" that are elected by the Community

*No Wikia Tech Support - Not a problem, Brickimedia has their own skilled admins such as ToaMeiko.

A for yes

B for hell yes

Seeing everyone mostly gone from this place, it's sad, we just one day all grew up... It was a good time though, folks.

This is the place to talk about your favorite topic, to share news, theories, ideas, and to connect with others. The content from your Forum has been converted to Discussions posts, so nothing has been lost.

To learn more about what you can do here, check out community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Discussions

If you're an admin on this community, read more about how you can customize your Discussions and set up guidelines for contributors: community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Admin_and_Moderator_Tools_in_Discussions

Have fun!

My daughter is playing a Lego Friends game and asks me to help when she gets stuck.... I need your help :).

does enybody know how to control the speed of the medum moter of the ev3 mindstorm set

I'm LPS Monsterpawz from my YouTube channel. I was Unikittylover2 on the message boards, so if you followed me on there, go ahead and check out my YT!

Hey guys, the Lego Message Boards Discord is now open. After much testing, the team and I have determined that it is ready for the public. Here's the invite link. I would definitely recommend trying it out, it's awesome. ;) :P

discord.gg/2r3a5ce

Hey guys. Over the past few days I have been working on a Discord server for LMB members. Once the mod team is ready the server will be made public. This server is not related to the LMB wiki Discord, and will be a family friendly, moderated environment. The link to the server will be posted very soon, so be sure to check back. If you want to become apart of the staff please message me via my Discord (LukeTheDuke424 #2556). Be sure to comment any questions. ;)

Since nobody's technically "active" anymore, I'm thinking we should maybe change any articles that say the user is still active to just make them say that the user was active at the time of the closure?  Also maybe we could say if they still user the LEGO Galleries or whatever.

TheShadowAssassin is running for DM. Please take the time to vote here if you would bless us so.

Romaniandude12 is running for Admin, vote Here

Marshal6000 is running for Chat Moderator, vote here

So I've just discovered we have a plethora of loopholes in the RfR policy.

As Slice recently pointed out with his most recent admin RfR, we have this loophole in the RfR policy which means you could have had two months CM experience in the past, lose the rights, but still be able to run for admin without the rights. I propose we change the wording here from "Two months chat moderator experience." to "Two months chat moderator experience and current CM rights".

Since we're at it already, I also propose we change the wording for the Discussion Mod requirement from "Chat Moderator rights prior to nomination" to "Chat Moderator rights at time of nomination". The wording's a bit too vague.

And finally, I propose we add "current admin rights" to the requirements of Bureaucrat RfR. Right now they're just "Current activity (users decide)" and "3 months as an administrator". So in theory Goggles, BCG, and Drew could run for 'crat despite not having the rights.

Vote 1: Should we change the admin RfR requirement from "Two months chat moderator experience." to "Two months chat moderator experience and current CM rights"?

A) Yes: 19 votes.

B) No: 5 votes.

Vote 2: Should we change the DM RfR requirement from "Chat Moderator rights prior to nomination" to "Chat Moderator rights at time of nomination"?

A) Yes: 19 votes.

B) No: 5 votes.

Vote 3: Should we change the 'crat RfR requirement from "Current activity (users decide)" to "Current activity (users decide) and current admin rights"?

A) Yes: 19 votes.

B) No: 5 votes.

Consensus

Yes to all.

Veralann is running for Administrator. So, why not give him a vote, right? So yeah, vote here.

Tuvok95 is running for Chat Moderator, if you feel like it vote here

legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Disco_Dude

legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Rapper

Rapper: "This remains the only unreached rank."

nobody got to disco dude either

So Hyper decided to implement the same rules for RFRs as CVs.

This is because he says that Thread:274076 referred to both CVs and RfRs. However to pass a RFR you need 75% or 85% support from the total number of supports and opposes. A majority community percentage means if 51% of the community voted on a rfr it can be closed instantly after 5 days, so if someone is opposed by 51% of the community or supported by 51% of the community.

Do we... A) Want a majority community percentage rule (51%) and then have another CV to clarity how the majority community percentage (51%) will relate to the support percentages (75% or 85%)?

Or B) Not bother and not a have a majority community percentage?

Votes

A: 4

B: 11

Other: 3

Consensus

Remove the majority community percentage from RfRs.

Slicer Vorzakh is running for Adminstrator so why don't you move along and vote here for the sake of democracy!

When editing wikia articles, should we...

a) put all users at rank 29

b) put all users at the ranks they were before the alien rankup

c) put all users at the ranks they were at before the post req was lowered

d) put all users at the ranks they were at before the minutes req was lowerd

I vote d.

a votes: 3

b votes: 9

c votes: 2

d votes: 6

Consensus

Put all users at the ranks they were before the Alien rankup.

This thread is a place for anyone to post any chat screenshots that you wish to take out of context for humorous or otherwise meaningful purposes. If the message has suggestive connotations, do try to keep its discussion within the rules. I'll start off this thread with a little something from our very own TME.

Veralann is running for Administrator. It would be much appreciated to everyone if you would stop what you are doing and vote here. 

Legoanimals750 is running for Discussions Moderator. Please take the time to vote here

Now that the MBs are more or less gone, this wiki is the largest community of MBers. While this place does have forums, they are not suitible for the long disussions of the MBs. There is however, a solution, and that comes in the form of Lego Message Boards Eternal.

LMBE is a community in line with the rules of both our wiki and the MBs, and is moderated by trusted MBers, including KoolKanin herself. It is also the biggest of the "replacement MBs" by far. In order to help direct MBers to LMBE, I propose that we endorse the site. This would involve leaving a link on our homepage.

How would this help the Wiki? Well, it would provide a seamless link between the two sites, and this would mean that there will be less spamming of links to LMBE in both chat and on message walls. Also, keep in mind that endorsing LMBE does not mean that the Wiki can't endorse other MB replacements.

Do you support an endorsement of Lego Message Boards Eternal?

A Yes 2 votes

B No 7 votes

C Neutral 0 votes

D Support with Mutual Endorsement 18 votes

Consensus

Yes, with mutual endorsement.

So basically a long time ago in a galaxy far far away there was a crap ton of community votes and we decided to try to reduce the amount of votes by making them applicable only to policy modifications. Nowadays there are way less CVs and way more things we'd like to vote on that, under that vote, we cannot, so we're now voting to undo that.

Should we undo the above-stated vote?

A)Yes: 15 Votes

B)No:

Consensus

Yes, undo the vote.

Romaniandude12 is running for Discussion Moderator, please take the time to vote here.

AmazingPythor is running for bureaucrat. Please take the time to vote here.

I've been thinking about doing a LEGO stopmotion for a while now. My idea is that of a concert, with an actual setup, artists/band, crowd, instruments, etc. Everything will be there, however I'm not really sure which artists/bands I would like to have perform. 

So, that's where you come in! I'm just looking for some suggestions for any artists/bands that you would maybe like to see in the film. After I get a fair amount of suggestions, I'll limit it down to 5 bands and artists for you guys to choose from. The top 3 with the most votes will go on to perform in the film. Yes, you can suggest more than one band. No, joke artists like Rick Astley are not allowed.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that the main reason why I'm doing this is because I've actually done it before (like 8 or 9 years ago, so when I was like 10 years old lol) and I would really love to do it again. Also if you guys want, I can upload the old one I did and you can get a preview of what my 10 year old-me voice was like hah)

Anyway, I appreciate any suggestions that you may have to offer, thank you for reading!

Suggestions so far:

KISS

Darke Complex

Heyo everyone, I'm here to help in any way I can. Didn't see any sort of updated/current objective sort of thing so I was wondering if there was any particular place I could start contributing to, to the best of my abilities.

QuantumHedgehog is running for chat moderator, please take the time to vote here.

I don't see why we need to this be blocked anymore. It's a yellowx, I've heard from many that they want it unblocked, and as always if it's used to attack someone that would be handled by moderators on at the time. I want to be able to say that some guy I saw the other day was a "douchenozzle" and whatnot. Or be able to call a certain hairstyle "douchey." Doesn't seem like a bad word to me. Let's vote on it. (I vote unblock.)

Votes

Unblock: 5

Keep blocked:

Neutral: 1

Result

Unblock

We all know that he was banned. Something I remind you was about 16 months ago. Since then, in my interactions he seems to have greatly improved, even shoving off my pushes for him to make a dupe account. As a recent conversation on chat showed, there is an implicit bias towards those we allow back and don't. We have Nigma back, a member of the community who was notorious for trolling and attacking the wiki. Ale's justification for Nigma being back was that he redeemed himself by not trolling or attacking for the past year.

Given that we have gone over a year without any YJF related incidents, shouldn't this mean that YJF should be allowed back? As I see it, there is no reason to keep him blocked that is not a personal bias.

For) 1

Against)

Neutral)

Hi I'm just here to announce that some users including: Enoch,Karateduo01,MO, and a few others are working on a new message boards, ninjagotestforum.freeforums.net (link to our new message boards) we have included some new things and some old things, like Lego universe, and reintroducing the force awakens/sequel era for the Star Wars RPs, and gave Jurassic world RP forums and added stories too! Some things are missing (Elves,Friends,Disney) but we have reasons, we don't know much about friends or elves so if we saw a huge interest for them, we would add them but for Disney we were thinking of adding a Kingdom Hearts RP Sub-forum to it, though we did it as at least 25 people to sign to make that happen, otherwise Disney will be more like its Old/Current Offical LEGO Message Boards

So here's the link for our Message Boards

ninjagotestforum.freeforums.net (The name is up to be changed as its about all things Lego related than just ninjago)

And the Kindgom Hearts RP for The LEGO Disney Forums

docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScBL3QOjwDHfaIM04PZH4HW6l6Pm0xnWvjDCRPxXHpRlQzCpg/viewform (We need at least 25 people to sign to make the Kingdom Hearts RP, due to some staff having doubts about it)

So recently multiple users have complained to me that the 96 hours requirement for Requests for Rights, which prohibits RfRs from being closed until they have been up for four days, is more of a nuisance than an equitable policy. Because the other RfR requirements seem to be effective in making position advancement difficult on their own, and the 96 hours wait seems to serve as nothing besides a redundant roadblock, I suppose it would make sense to remove it. 

Should we remove the 96 Hours Requirement from Requests for Rights?

A: Yes: 9 votes.

B: No: 8 votes.

Consensus

Yes, remove the 96-hours requirement from RfR.

Roddy15 is running for chat moderator, please take the time to vote here.

The current outline for topic pages does not archive important posts in that topic. The addition of a "Notable Posts" section would fix that issue.

(A) Yes add the section [12 votes]

(B) No, don't add the section

Consensus

Yes, add the section.

The current restrictions on creating user articles are:

Rank 5 or higher/Master Reader or higher.

If the user is lower than Rank 5:

If he/she has a rank, 100+ posts made since the 2012 update.

These rules used to make sense when the LMBs weren't close to retirement, but now removing these restrictions and saving as many users as possible before their information is gone forever is extremely important.

(A) Yes, remove restrictions [20 votes]

(B) No, keep restrictions

Consensus

A

The current rules for creating topic pages are:

Chat and role-play topics must have at least 300 pages

Story topics must have at least 50 pages

All other topics must have at least 75 pages

While these rules held up well when the LMBs weren't threatened by closing, recent events have prompted me to create this vote to remove these restrictions, which would allow us to maximize topics archived before all the content on the LEGO Message Boards is gone.

(A) Yes, remove restrictions [18 votes]

(B) No, keep restrictions

Consensus

A

Romaniandude12 is running for discussions moderator, please take the time to vote here.

TheShadowAssassin is running for chat moderator, please take the time to vote here.

This thread is for any questions about what is appropriate and inappropriate to say on chat (or on threads/blogs, etc., but chat appears to be the main issue).

A few guidelines for this thread — 

1) Only comment if you have a question for the admins, are an admin answering a question, or have something extremely relevant to a discussion. If you want to object to an admin decision, create a different thread or message admins on their walls, PM, etc.

2) If there is no admin consensus about a particular word or phrase or context, then you are allowed to say it — providing no one on chat is offended.

3) Don't ask about words that are blocked. If you want them unblocked use a different thread.

4) Keep everything civil and assume good faith, please.

Here's the basic idea...

Democrat: Republican is a bigot!

Republican: Democrat is naive and stupid!

That's just within the two major American parties. Often, chat is either dominated by a left majority or a right majority, and it without fail turns into a bashfest of the other side that the other side either tries to defend against (creating a debate -- I've done it before) or that the other side is forced to ignore to keep the peace (I've done this many times, too).

Then you add to that "Nazism" and "Communism," and although there are no adherents of the former on the wiki, plenty of people find both regimes to be despotic and horrible, which often leads to people either being made uncomfortable or causing another defense and political debate.

I seek here to end all political discussion at all. Objective facts that neither side can dispute may be stated, such as "_____ won the election" or "I like _____." You cannot add why you support that side or politician, nor can you add beliefs that are opposed by the other side -- even if they are supported by government or scientific sources.

I hope this will add to more stability and fairness here.

A) Yes: 1

B) No: 0

I vote yes.

Alright, time for something that I think would actually benefit this place greatly.

Yours truly has been banned for using words in chat once previously totally acceptable under the common sense policy. Obviously, myself and other users have been shocked at this sudden shift of unclear chat policy. 

Something that would be helpful and beneficial would be a list of what actually cannot be said. We have our blocked words list, but that's only for words that are never allowed. This list would be complete in the sense of blocking words in specific context. Example, I can say "Hitler was once the leader of Germany," but I cannot say "Sieg Heil, I love Hitler; we need another one." The difference in these two statements is that latter is of offensive nature. The word (Hitler) and the context (I love Hitler) would be included in the list, alongside other unallowed uses of Hitler in other contexts.

The list would be continuely updated by community votes when necessary, not solely managed by the admins.

I ask that the responsible administrators create this proposed list, as to ensure harmony and content in chat and in the entire wiki.

Should we have a complete list of things you may not say in relation to context?

(A) Yes: 13

(B) No: 3

(C) Neutral: 6

Please read this blog clarifying some points of our policy.

User_blog:Obi_the_LEGO_Fan/Clarification_of_UCS

An odd acronym that is red x. I didn't even know what it was until I googled for like three minutes. Could get in the way of a legitimate acronym that means something different. Example: 'Bidirectional Forwarding Detection', which would commonly be shortened to "BFD," would be blocked. Admins/cms can clearly tell if one is trying to use the originally blocked meaning.

(A) Unblock: 8

(B) Keep Blocked: 13

(C) Neutral: 3

Same as before, but new name. Vote here.

Petition for unblocking "gigolo". There's support for it.

Let's vote.

Votes

Unblock: 2 votes

Keep blocked: 1 vote

Consensus

Unblock.

No need to be blocked, it's rather outdated; especially when considering our recent unblocks. We even allow the female version of the word.

Yes (A): 14

No (B): 5

Neutral (C): 6

New emote vote for a french flag emote. Vote here.

Given how we've recently had numerous arguments and discussions on the subject of Nazi imagery in avatars and Nazi stuff on the Wiki in general, here's a vote to clear things up once and for all. In discussion with Rio, we've decided to extend this proposed ban on all hate symbols (which shouldn't need voting on, but hey, this Wiki...). This would also be extended to figures like Hitler, Göring, etc. Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. Honest, mature, serious discussion would still be allowed, provided it doesn't degenerate into a massive argument, and no-one is bothered by it.

Should we ban all hate symbols and imagery on the Wiki, in image, video, and text form?

A) Yes: 21 Votes

B) No: 6 Votes

C) Neutral: 2 Votes

Consensus

Yes, ban all hate symbols.

This is something that drives me, and I'm sure other admins and DMs, insane. As you know, RfRs get closed two days after the last vote. That means we have to look at the date on which each vote was posted to see how much time is left. Now, this would be easy and all...

Except for the fact that almost no-one has timestamps in their signatures. Why? Because users can't be bothered to type four tildes at the end of their vote. In case you don't know what it means, here are the tildes: ~~~~. These four tildes automatically convert into a signature which you can modify in Special:Preferences with an included timestamp, which makes it super-easy for admins and DMs to know when the user voted.

I'm proposing that users are required to use these four tildes for their signature. It's a courtesy towards the people responsible for keeping track of RfRs.

Should we require users to use "~~~~" for their signatures?

A) Yes: 2 votes.

B) No: 22 votes.

C) Yes, for RfR votes: 1 vote.

Consensus

No.

As the title states, this is a vote to reverse the outcome of Thread:283053.

Let's just be clear. That vote was a horrible idea. What has ended up happening is that a very select few (the admins) were left to speak for an entire community, and what the community wants, even with a strong majority, ends up having no bearing on what is actually implemented depending on if the admins disagree or not.

For example, this admin vote. In the community discussion, the proposal had a community majority in support, but the proposal was ultimately shut down by the moderators who personally were against it.

Do not misunderstand me. I respect our admins and their decisions, but you need to decide. Do you want to basically forgo your say in all decisions? And if so, for what reason?

Support: 3 Vote

Oppose: 1 Vote

Since this ridiculous vote, the simple task of unblocking a word now falls in the hands of a very small segment of this wiki's user base. Yay!

So I propose we unblock "ass," seeing that damn, piss, hell, and other words on an arguably equal level are unblocked, and there have been little to no issues. "Ass" enables us to say "badass" and other words like that, where replacing it with "butt" (badbutt) is childish and is far more immoral, imo, than the offending word to begin with. I believe the majority of the wiki would like to see it unbanned...but we can't know for sure now, can we? Darn!

Votes

Unblock: 3

Keep blocked: 2

Consensus

Unblock.

I'm forced to ask.  Why are the words "retard," and "retarded" not allowed on chat?  First of all, they have multiple defined meanings.

Example: "My progress was retarded by an obstacle."

Even the alternative definition as defined by Dictionary.com says that it is used to refer to people who are "stupid," or "foolish."  If we are going to keep a word banned because it could be used in an insulting way, then we should go ahead and ban "moron," "stupid," "idiot," and others that could be used to hurt someone's feelings.  These words are unblocked because they can be used without ridiculing others, and if they are used in that context, we have common sense policy that applies.

This is my last point.  If we are going to worry about potentially offending a small minority of people who likely don't even use the wiki, then why aren't the words "autistic," "crippled," "hunchback," "midget," "psycho," and others blocked?  It simply doesn't make sense to block one specific word that has multiple meanings, yet consider these words perfectly acceptable.  Anyway, these are simply my thoughts.

Here's a Seinfeld emote. Go vote here. xD

It is my personal opinion that this honorable man, Swatman805, be commended for his contribution in singlehandedly creating the "Malestrom Hurricane Sex Boy", which according to some is predicted to be the #1 toy this Christmas. I think that the least we could do is show him some respect by crediting him with the creation of such a fine thing. Dubba Booey (talk) 01:22, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

Hyperflash Studios is running for admin. Vote for him here.

Slicer Vorzakh is running for admin. Vote for him here.

Currently, a Request for Administrator or Bureaucrat rights requires 25 supports to pass, 5 more than needed for DM or CM RfRs. To many, this seems logical, as these are significantly higher positions of power, but the declining population of the wiki causes me to believe otherwise.

For example, during my administrator RfR, the greatest challenge by far was not gaining the community's support, public opinion was almost unanimous, but simply getting to 25 supports took far longer than it should have, especially considering all users who voted but one supported me. Even since this vote, several users have retired or slipped into semi-activity (a few users have become active since then as well, but hardly enough to compensate for this). Of course, it should still be difficult for an admin or bureaucrat RfR to pass, but meeting the minimum support requirement should not be the primary difficulty, gaining the support of the community should be.

For these reasons, I believe the minimum support requirement for Administrator and Bureaucrat Requests for Rights should be lowered to 20, a number more suitable for the current population of the wiki.

Note: I consider this to be a policy modification, which is why I have opened a Community Vote for this.

Votes

A. Lower the requirement to 20 supports for both: 10 Votes

B. Lower the requirement to 20 supports for only admin RfRs: 4 Votes

C. Lower the requirement to 20 supports for only bureaucrat RfRs: 0 Votes

D. Change Nothing: 14 votes

Consensus

Change nothing.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Put away those pitchforks

So in the past, common sense has caused many disagreements between editors. Things such as whether or not this article should follow this format, whether this image goes here or not, whether this section should link to this page, things such as whether or not something explicitly stated in the MoS should actually be put on an article, among other things. In any case, it hasn't really been that helpful to anyone, as it just kinda makes editors unhappy with each other. So I propose we remove common sense as it applies to article editing, and just add hard exceptions to specific things that need them, which will be discussed below.

TL;DR: common sense in editing causes issues, so remove the source of the problem

Note: this will not remove common sense from other aspects of the wiki, such as chat.

Ya'll know the drill

go here

So Hyper pointed out to me that the links in MediaWiki:ChatSkins.js (the page responsible for chat skins) are semi-broken; "lmbtest" has to be changed to "legombwikitest". This is why chat skins have been "broken" for months.

I know it's a simple fix, but I would still like to know...

Will you ever, ever use those chat skins?

Consider this as a poll of sorts, 'cause if no-one uses them, why even bother having them?

As you can see here, we have two deleted accounts on the leaderboard: Edward Nigma and Izzybe5. Now, as you may know, Edward Nigma is rather infamous here as he is blocked from wikia permanently, and Izzybe5 has a new account, so I don't see the point in either of these two deleted accounts staying on the leaderboard. They can be removed by blocking the accounts.

A) Block only Edward Nigma 3 votes

B) Block only Izzybe5 1 Vote

C) Block both: 10 Votes

D) Do nothing: 11 Votes

Consensus reached: Do Nothing

I don't know...

According to this, a major part of the community wants the word "dab" to be a yellowx word.

Without a hint of sarcasm.

In any case, to clear all doubts, here's an admin vote.

Should we ban the words "dab" and "dabbing"?

With the growth of a new type of painful messages in chat, I would like to propose a way to counter these.  I have become aware that mentioning a certain dance move known as the "dab" is widely unpopular amongst individuals on chat, myself included.

With this recognization, I would like to see if banning any mention of the word "dab" would be a popular proposition.

Under this proposition, the word "dab" would become a yellow x and would warrant an immediate kick.  I find this to be a rational and worthy idea, but feel free to discuss below.

Allooo~

This is, in fact, a vote to change policy, do not worry (or maybe you should).

Currently, the "guidelines" for creating an article for a topic is 300 pages (4,500 posts) for RPs and Chatrooms and 75 pages (1,125 posts) for topics that do not fall under the former categories. Besides the common sense rule, these are the only guidelines for creating articles for topics.

There are several stories on the MBs that are quite popular, noticeable by their like count. An example would be our lovely Skulduggery's stories, specifically "A Kingdom of Mods " and "Trial and War." These are the first and second stories in his still unnamed (as far as I know) trilogy. These stories, although not as popular as the last, both have over 6,000 likes, but do not meet MoS as they both have less than 1,125 posts. I would consider these stories quite important to the Message Boards, specifically the Stories Subforum, and there are a few others that are also very liked but do not have a lot of posts. More examples would "Ninja " by Scorpio360 and "Cucumberman " by M4Jesus.

I propose we make MoS a bit clearer when it comes to story topics, as they can be considered just as important as popular chatrooms such as Brickbook or Finding Friendships. Thank you for your time.

I would like to clarify that if you do not vote for A or B but vote for the other, I will count it as you do not want a post/like requirement added or changed.

A) Decrease post requirement for story topics.

----1) Make requirement 33 pages (500 posts):

----2) Make requirement 50 pages (750 posts): 6

----3) Make requirement 66 pages (1000 posts):

----4) Make requirement 20 pages (300 posts): 2

----5) Do not change posts requirements: 2

----6) Other. Explain in vote.

B) Add a like requirement for story topics.

----1) Make requirement 1,500 likes: 2

----2) Make requirement 2,000 likes: 1

----3) Make requirement 2,500 likes:

----4) Make requirement 10 likes: 1

----5) Do not add one: 6

----6) Other. Explain in vote.

C) Change nothing: 3

D) "Allow" common sense to be used by patrollers and content mods: 1

Consensus

A2 B5: Requirement 50 pages (750 posts), no like requirement

A squidward dab emote is up to be voted on. Vote for it here.

This wiki has "band" articles, so I think it'd be fair to say that we should have some story articles. :P People like Skul, Klafroth, Gideon, Scorpio, and many others where all very well known for the stories they would write.  Stories are a big part of the MB Community, so I think it would make sense to have articles on the majjor ones.  Now clearly there's a million stories, and we can't really make a page for every single story, so maybe we should set up some criteria? :P For instance, the story in question must have a least n posts that contribtue to it's story, the story topic must be n pages long, or the story must be completed. (that doesn't happen very often XP) A page about a story could have a link to the story (obviously :P), a summery of the plot or plot description, and a list of the characters in the story and descriptions of said characters.  I don't know, I've read like 10 stories that I think could use articles, and I can write some of them. :P I think this would be fairly easy, even if someone didn't want to actually read the story, they could still write an article that had the basic plot and a list of some of the characters just by looking at the first 5 or 10 posts. :P

So, what are your thoughts on this?

This discussion/vote seems to show a support for rank badges... and given that it's not a policy modification, this goes to the admins.

What do you think, should we reintroduce badges linked to ranks? Like, when you edit users with the Minotaur rank, you get Minotaur badges, for example.

We used to have them, back in the old days, but we removed them soon after the 2012 update considering the sheer amount of ranks and concerns about spam editing.

A coffee emote is up for vote. Vote for it here. c:

They were relevant then, they're relevant now. Vote.

A) Support: 12 Votes

B) Oppose: 6 votes

Consensus

Support

I support, duh.

Back in the days of yore we had badges one could earn by editing articles that had the categories of MB ranks in them. I propose that we add these badges back.

A) Add back rank badges: 8 supports for more badges

B) Keep the badges the same: 5 opposes, no more badges

I personally think that links to the user's current MB profile should be added to archives. For example, in this page there's already a link to my userpage in the more information box and I feel that a link to the MB profiles of archives would contribute to the sense of "see also." In cases where the archive is of a deleted account, no such link would be provided, of course.

A) Add links to current MB profiles of archived user articles 12 votes

B) Change nothing 5 votes

Well, since the vote to make CVs only for policy modifications passed, we're going to have to come to a mutal agreement through discussion (gasp). Now, generally speaking, modding goes rather smoothly. However, in some situations like this there are issues. We also have the huge problem of pretty much every ban having to be screened by an admin which is kinda ridiculous at times, because it kinda prevents we non-admins from actually doing our job. I personally think we should have a bit more independence in moderating (i.e. If one mod bans someone and then decides it's a little too long they should be able to correct that themselves instead of waiting for an admin vote.) I think admin votes in terms of bans should only be used in either severe cases or when the popular opinion is against that of the banning mod. This would help promote efficiency and keep the messes like the above link down, though I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter as well.

This is a thing so check it out here and perhaps vote.

So I recently opened a discussion (see here) about what to do with community votes. So I'm making a vote to make them only for policy modifications. It's so dang silly to vote on literally every single thing, some of which have no bearing on a large amount of users. So really, I think we should just make CVs only for policy modifications and leave other big decisions to the administrative team that most of the community voted in. In turn this wil also allow other staff members to do their jobs more efficiently since it won't require a community vote every time a mod wants to mod chat or a patroller wants to edit some articles. (this is sarcasm). And then, if someone wants to do something, they can either ask the admins or just go ahead and do it, depending on the scale (i.e. if someone wants to make a weekly blog that goes in the news section, they'd ask an admin, whereas if someone wanted to make one that didn't go in the news category they wouldn't have to).

Should we make CVs applicable only for policy modifications?

A) Yes: 17 Votes

B) No: 7 votes

Consensus reached; Community Votes are now only to be used for policy modifications, any other large changes to be screened by admins

Since the admin site should be used just for blocks and bans, I'm moving a discussion not related to them here.

Eagle originally wrote the following: "So, obviously we are gonna be doing a lot of demoting after the CV finishes. We should probably coordinate how it's gonna play out. Perhaps we should tell them that it's coming on their message walls so they aren't surprised when they log in"

I said that we didn't warn the CMs the last time we did mass demotions. We should have everything synchronised; we should start the demotion process when the vote closes, and start demoting once Wikia Staff gets informed of the 'crat demotions.

Continue your discussions here, admins.

Now I know what you're thinking, but honestly, it seems so ridiculously silly to vote on everything, and it would be much easier to just make CVs for things like policy modifications and not really need a vote for every single little thing. If the admins want to do something, then fine, let them. If someone wants to ask the admins if they can start a weekly blog to show up in the news, then who cares? There's so much excessive democracy that it literally gets in the way of actually enjoying this place. I'd like to hear your detailed thoughts on the matter so that we can hopefully figure out a solution that doesn't require making a vote on everything.

Main discussion/reasoning here: Thread:282600

Should we add user tags for retired admins/buros?

A) Yes: 21 Votes

B) No:

Consensus

Yes.

So recently there's been some discussion on removing the rights from inactive users, so in order to ensure that they can retain their status while also fulfilling the desires of the community to remove their rights, I propose we add user tags that show what their previous rank was before the removal of their rights (i.e "retired administrator"). The code would be fairly simple and wouldn't take me too long to set up. However I'd like to hear the what the community has to say first.

This should be pretty straightforward. I personally think they all need slight adjusting (except for buro) but we'll find out if you think the same. We generally don't get a lot of requests unless a bunch of people go inactive/lose their rights so yeah.

What should the wait time between RfRs for CM be?

1 Week: 1 Vote

2 Weeks: 1 Vote

3 Weeks: 1 Vote

4 Weeks (aka leave as-is): 14 Votes

DM wait time

1 Week: 1 Vote

2 Weeks: 1 Vote

3 Weeks (leave as-is): 3 Votes

4 Weeks: 12 Votes

Admin wait time

1 Week: 1 Vote

2 Weeks:

3 Weeks:

4 Weeks: 2 Votes

8 Weeks (as-is): 12 Votes

12 Weeks: 2 Votes

Buro

1 Week: 1 Vote

2 Weeks:

3 Weeks:

4 Weeks:

8 Weeks (as-is): 15 Votes

12 Weeks: 1 Vote

Consensus

Keep CM, Admin and Bureaucrat RfR waiting times the same, extend DM RfR to 4 weeks.

Since this vote passed, here's the thread where you can vote to demote or keep the inactive admins and 'crats. Spider would keep his CM/DM rights in case of demotion. Bureaucrat rights can be removed by asking Wikia Staff (in case you thought they couldn't get their rights taken away).

BusyCityGuy:

Demote: 21 votes - Consensus reached

Keep: 2 vote

Danielboone6702:

Demote: 21 votes - Consensus reached

Keep: 2 vote

Drew1200:

Demote: 15 votes - Consensus reached

Keep: 13 votes

Jdude420:

Demote: 2 vote

Keep: 21 votes - Consensus reached

LBK10:

Demote: 21 votes - Consensus reached

Keep: 2 votes

Madkatmaximus:

Demote: 21 votes - Consensus reached

Keep: 2 Votes

Nxtstep101:

Demote: 21 votes - Consensus reached

Keep: 2 votes

Obi the LEGO Fan:

Demote: 8 votes

Keep: 20 votes - Consensus reached

ZXSpidermanXZ:

Demote: 7 votes

Keep: 21 votes - Consensus reached

Consensus

Keep Jdude420, Obi the LEGO Fan, and ZXSpidermanXZ.

Demote BusyCityGuy, Danielboone6702, Drew1200, LBK10, Madkatmaximus, and Nxtstep101.

Okay so, I'll make this really simple. I know we are all tired of these CV's but this is something that needs to be addressed. Not too long ago we had a vote to clean out all the inactive Mods and we did so. However, there are still a lot of inactive Admins that we could easily say are inactive and who are not involved in the wiki at all anymore. This is just a vote to decide if the wiki has a whole thinks we need to downsize our admins and giving a couple options as to how to do so.

A.) Support 21 votes

B.) Oppose 3 votes

C.) Neutral 1 vote

If you voted A, how would we go about this?

1.) Let the admins vote and clean themselves out

2.) Another CV to decide 21 votes

Consensus

Demote inactive admins via community vote.

So over several disagreements, mainly over blocked words, I feel that now woild be a good time to bring this up. Now you may wonder, "why should we have an entire separate wiki for those swearers?" Well, in New LMBW, the users would be users from here who want to talk to each other with more freedom of speech then here, as the only major rule there is common sense. Even to those who won't go to the new wiki, this'll improve LMBW, where there will be fewer votes and less disagreement in general. So in summary, endorsing and joining NLMBW will be best for users of both wikis.

Should we endorse New LMBW?

A) Yes 7 votes

B) No 21 votes 

C) Neutral 3 votes

Consensus

No

Do tell

(If you have criticism, please ensure its constructive, as that's the only way I can improve)

BraveNewRoyalty is a negative influence on chat and this wiki as a whole. He's a drunken pervert who doesn't deserve to be on this community. He must be blocked for the sake of the wiki.

A: Block: 4 votes

B: Keep unblocked: 8 votes

Yeah. Title says it all. Please vote at the tone of the beep.

BEEEEEEEEP!!!

A: Yes 21 Votes

B: No 0 Votes

C: Neutral 0 Votes

Consensus

Yes

thoroughness is very key, please be serious, no sugarcoating

Bubbles is running for dm, vote here.

go ahead and either tell me what you think of me or what you think about when you think of me

god this is so vain

So, I've been thinking, and it seems like lately I've been doing a lot of coding for the wiki lately. However, I have to wait for an admin to implement it, which can take up to several hours So to increase efficiency, I propose we request Wikia to edit an existing user right (yes, this is doable and actually quite common on wikis) which allows access to editing the MediaWiki namespace. We'll also vote on how to grant the rights.

Should we request Wikia change a user right to allow the editing of MediaWiki pages (aka code)?

A) Yes: 9 Votes

B) No: 14 Votes

C) Neutral: 1 vote

If you voted A) Yes, how should the rights be granted?

1) Request to an administrator (coding knowledge must have been previously demonstrated):

2) Admin vote (in community discussions):

3) RfR (if this option wins, a vote will be held later to decide requirements): 9 Votes

Consensus

No new user right for editing MediaWiki pages.

Hey everyone! I had been pondering doing this for a while, but I finally decided to do it. Have you ever wanted a fancy chat username or a cool signature? I can do that for you! just let me know in the comments of what you would like and I'll design it!

Note: I am only taking 5 requests at a time, so it's first come first served.

Note: all fonts must be available at google fonts (or be a basic typefont) to be able to be imported onto the wiki.

gogogo

i didn't know the wiki has its own personal r/roastme equivalent

but yeah, sure, go ahead, i'm actually interested. didn't sink five years into this place without leaving an impression i hope

Might as well jump in, let me know what you think of me in your most honest terms.

I figured I would join the others here.  

Eh, I'm pretty uncontroversial, but go ahead.

Do your worst.

I expect everyone to hate me at this point.

On an admin's advice, I have decided to create a discussion about how to cut down on community votes. Please state your ideas below