FANDOM

­
976 Pages
1000px-Bigfoot This is Sasquatch101's official message wall. Please leave a message below and Sasquatch will get back to you. If its an emergency, contact another Wiki staff member. Do not alter or remove old messages without Sasquatch's approval.
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • MH 007 has resigned. I can't delete his rollback rights, can you?

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Cool to know someone else on this Wikia has an interest in Survivor and the UFC!

    What were your thoughts on McGregor and Mayweathers fight? I personally thought Conor did well lasting 10 rounds against Floyd, he got some big hits in too, you could see him tire in the 4th round though.

    I've been watching Survivor since Panama, but my favorite season is probably either Samoa or Heroes vs Villains.

      Loading editor
    • Same here. When the fight started off I though Conor had Floyd. I think it was round 3 when Conor did that sick uppercut and we saw Floyd get scared. At the end of round 9 Conor was completely out of gas. He started round 10 with those flurry of punches and as usual Floyd completely turned his back to cover. After the ref separated them Floyd had his way with Conor. The ref should have let the KO happen as there was over a minute left in the round but I guess that's just how boxing is. Conor did really good. I love both of them but Conor is such a character I was rooting for him. On the other hand Floyd can now retire with respect.

      I've been watching Survivor since season 1 through China, then Samoa to present. That's the best show of all-time. Never really gets old. Boston Rob, Russell Hantz and Phillip Shepard are my favorites. The seasons you mentioned are my favorites too, Cagayan with Tony (spy shack)was great.

        Loading editor
    • Oh yes! Tony talking like a Llama was funny as heck aswell, my all time favorites have to be Boston Rob, Russell Hantz and Parvati Shallow, I felt like Russell did deserve to win atleast once.

      Biggest shocker was John Cochrane winning, I never seen that coming, worst contestant in my opinion was Colton, Jeff ripped into him when he quit a second time.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I'm gonna post this list of fixes of which, I'm not gonna credit on who suggested these because I want this to be an unbiased decisions between you and Boomer.

    "1.) Remove the badge system, encourages shit edits 2.) Change RfP to include "mainspace edits" to prevent people who only comment from gaining staff rights 3.) Stop glamorising staff as godlike users, especially Bureaucrats where disagree = harassment. They should just be regular users with added buttons 4.) End the cancer that is "friend groups" or whatever you want to call them. Retarded divise shit, where people treat the wiki (a place where all users are supposed to work together) like real life politics 5.) Add some sort of verification to articles, to prevent cranks from adding complete batshit and so every article isn't filled with weasel words 6.) (unrelated to this, just a change that needs to be made lol) Add categories with "... in GTA XYZ" so that categories actcually have a purpose, instead of looking through hundreds of proven myths in every game or creatures in every game"

      Loading editor
    • View all 19 replies
    • You can't block people for shit edits, because it won't help them improve and will just alienate them from the wiki...

        Loading editor
    • Not all shittery can be fixed though. Some may just persist doing shit, and if you do block them, they'll say "oh but i do nothing wrong ;((((("

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I created the wikia a Twitter account. Be sure to tell me if you are happy with it, or if you want me to delete it. Until I get a reply from either you or Boomer8, it will be on the main page though.

      Loading editor
  • Hey, could you vote on the RfD?

      Loading editor
  • Heya, Sas. Wanted a heads up on how much does a block on people who has sockpuppets should last?

      Loading editor
    • My 2 cents: A block for sockpuppetry depends on the whether or not the user is using their other account maliciously.

      There are plenty of reasons that a user could be using an alt account, as is stated on the Sockpuppetry policy page itself. In this scenario, don't block the user or their alt account, simple as that.

      If the user is using one or more alt accounts for malicious purposes (vandalism, ban evading) then you have to take the initiative and permanently block the alt account (as stated on the Policy page) and then apply a harsh block on the offending user.

      At least that's how I interpret the policy.

        Loading editor
    • Pretty much what Jim stated.

        Loading editor
    • Well, the situation is kinda defused right now.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • After seeing what has recently been happening in the chat, I feel like we need a new 'Chat Interaction Ban' policy that Admins can apply on users if 2 or more are in a heavy hatred/argument towards each other.

    Note : If you haven't noticed this either, admins can't kick chatmods anymore. I hope you'll update this wiki's policy on banning and kicking users in chat.

      Loading editor
    • The Wiki's policy already has an Interaction Ban rule. If there is trouble between two or more users they need to contact a Bureaucrat first so the Interaction Ban can be enacted. Regarding the chat, there is no way for one Admin to kick another as they have equal power.

        Loading editor
    • Sasquatch101 wrote:
      The Wiki's policy already has an Interaction Ban rule. If there is trouble between two or more users they need to contact a Bureaucrat first so the Interaction Ban can be enacted. Regarding the chat, there is no way for one Admin to kick another as they have equal power.

      This is where you're wrong. I made sure just in case if Mantiix or Indep ever went rogue, I added a kick feature that'll kick admin-to-admin and so on as the recent FANDOM update made Chatmods immune from getting kicked by admins. So in short : admins can kick admins and can also return to kicking chatmods, post-FANDOM chat update.

      Also, what I asked from you is to add a 'Chat Interaction Ban', that only applies to interactions in the chat whereas the normal Interaction Ban is for B'crats to decide who'll not contact who on the wiki for how long. This new if-applied policy would be best if admins can do it as B'crats are not always online and disputes between users may get bigger by the time you guys even come to a vote that'll probably take more than 2 days (you guys took more than that to vote on my RfP) and/or, we could avoid disputes getting bigger if this policy is made and admins are allowed to ban users from contacting with each other on chat (the only place with most activity on this wiki is the chat anyways).

        Loading editor
    • What you are proposing is a system that could be heavily abused as a way to shut people up. The Interaction Ban currently on the Policy is sufficient as it's purpose is to prevent continual harassment on, and off the chat. More often than not, disputes or disagreements in the chat are resolved in a matter of minutes and does not require mediation. If a user is feeling harassed though, all they have to do is contact a Bureaucrat and the ban will be put in effect indefinitely until both users settle their differences. Admins kicking Admins is ridiculous and would only lead to more conflict.

        Loading editor
    • Can't say no to that but can't say yeah either. Fine. I forget the policy. But admins kicking admins is a thing I didn't want at all but it came with the mod for the wiki chat. My goal was to add kicking chat mods back but it got the admin kick feature as well so yeah.

      And for your info : AndreyFD was about to leave this wiki because of conflicts in the chat not being resolved. I had to later step in and ban Mantiix to cool the situation down. This all could've been avoided if only we had a chat interaction ban. If I were you, I'd try to know what happened in the chat in the past few days then see what to do about it instead of 'guessing' chat conflicts will resolve itself in a 'few minutes'.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey, can you have a look on there and decide?

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Could you vote on my bureaucrat request? Thanks.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • There's an ill written request on the GTA Wiki suggesting to remove the GTA Myths Wiki as an affiliate. I've left a message there, so I think you'd be interested in giving your opinion as well.

      Loading editor
    • I think some of his criticisms are valid, at least in terms of the content. We have a lot of pages in the cleanup category and I might add some more soon. But that's certainly no reason to completely cut off the wiki.


      In other news, did you see the people he's gonna put on the wiki's Hall of Fame? topkek

        Loading editor
    • I think what Boomer said was pieced together greatly, they went on saying how we have so many new myths that can be deemed bullshit but new pages and myths is what keeps the user toll up, a lot of new users come on looking to add their finds and queries, I fully believe that the new myths and theories is what sparked up a lot of new memberships.

      I mean, if we left all the content to just the bare, whats the use of maintaining this such? I believe we come here looking to better the Wikia and ourselves in what we can achieve.

      I'll stop now since it's starting to sound like a University speech, but yeah just thought I'd leave my few thoughts.

        Loading editor
    • What critics of this wiki don't seem to understand is that we are exactly that: a wiki. The purpose of this website is to archive all known myths, however large or small, and however true or false they are. If you have a large community that has been active for a long time, it's inevitable that some bullshit will appear eventually. Even Wikipedia has thousands of articles on hoaxes.

      This is why the wiki has the Myths categories, the infobox, and states the validity of the myth in the opening paragraph. Nowhere does this wiki try to convince people that false myths are true or vice versa.

      There have been so many arguments about this in the past, just ask Sasquatch or Boomer, and the conclusion is always the same: False myths are a part of the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.