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.
What's on your mind?
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.
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.)
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.
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
Petition for unblocking "gigolo". There's support for it.
Unblock: 2 votes
Keep blocked: 1 vote
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
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!
Keep blocked: 2
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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