On this page you may post complaints, share your ideas, and tell us of any violations of Seeker's rules.

Birdyrox67- CLOSED

First off, I know I'm an admin and I have the rights to ban someone whenever I want, but I don't think that that would be fair. Please tell me on this page what a proper punishment should be, or if this should result in a simple warning.
Birdyrox67 has been making a lot of unnecessary blog posts, two of which I have deleted. Birdy should know that a blog titled "Seekers" with the only content being "rocks" isn't necessary, and gets admins who need to delete it rather annoyed.
Also, Birdy has been added many things to trivia sections of pages that are not needed, such as a comparison between Ujurak and "Beast Boy from Teen Titan". I have explained many times in edit summaries why his/her edits are unnecessary, and yet more keep popping up, like the blog post mentioned earlier that I have deleted.
This is a violation of Seekers Wiki rules- Under the editing section, it states that content not related to Seekers results in a 1 week ban. Beast Boy doesn't relate to Seekers though it was compared to Ujurak. Does that mean this is a violation, or should this be a warning? Voice your opinion below. ☾Mistey☽My Talk! 21:38, November 19, 2012 (UTC)
I think it could be 2 week ban becuase Birdyrox67 has done 2 bad things. We could also give her a warning to not do this again.
Midnight Snow
Maybe a warning, and if it happens again, a week-long ban would fit the bill.
☮♞✞SorrelΩflower☠☯⛄I need Coffee!
Good ideas- I have already given a warning, as Sorrel suggested, and now if anything else happens, Midnight Snow's idea of a 2 week ban will be in action. Thanks, ☾Mistey☽My Talk! 21:07, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Manulik's New Ideas- CLOSED

Look, I know the blog is still out there and the voting isn't completed, but we can't use those ideas.  We just can't.

  1. What's wrong with out current linking system?  It's simple- one link the first time a linkable word appears on a page.
  2. It's so much work for something that doesn't need to be done.  Every single page would need a new section, we would need to remove every single link.  Who wants to do that much work?  Maybe some users do to get more badges.
  3. Manulik claims this would make the wiki look neater- Do you know how messy that would look?  A whole section of randomly linked words.  Why not link words when they actually appear?

I mean, this will change the entire linking system of the wiki!  And those complaints are only for the linking idea.

Moving along to the category idea-

  1. There used to be categories for every book, be I deleted them for a reason (reasons stated below)
  2. We already have character categories.  Don't you think new users will get confused and start putting characters in those book categories?  That's just asking for problems.
  3. He says they are for the Cliffnotes, Cover Galleries, etc.  But  we have those linked on the page of each book.  It's just as simple to search:  "Category:Cover Galleries" or something like that.  Easier than that, click the name of the book at the top of the wiki, get to the page and in the info box it clearly shows all of the additional info about a book.
  4. Again, the work.  Why do we need to do this with a system in place?

Please realize I'm not complaining about Manulik, I'm complaining somewhat about these ideas.  Eveyone, keep in mind that Manulik has had excellent ideas before, and these just happen not to be his best. 

How would this "new system" look to other users viewing Seekers Wiki?  It'll look really messy.  And it's going to look even worse when we're in the process of changing the wiki.

I really don't care if there's been a poll on this, because we can't have users voting on random things, and this seems to only be a start.  I will not allow these ideas to be voted upon by random wiki contributors who may be looking to harm the wiki, but that's what polls do.  If a user has new ideas, take it to an admin first.  We (being Sorrel and I) can help tell you if you should create a blog post.  But even then, no polls.  Users can voice their opinions in the comments stating clearly why they believe an idea will help. 

I doubt anyone read through all of that, but it's there for a reason- people need to understand.  Thanks, ☾Mistey☽My Talk! 14:32, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

I have closed the voting. The ideas will not be put into affect, This makes it more clear on how difficult this would be. Manulik The Kodiak Bear 14:55, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Manulik.  Sorry if I sounded harsh at all, but I think that keeping this the same will help keep the wiki in better condition.  ☾Mistey☽My Talk! 15:20, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.