User talk:Raidarr

Sorry for everything that happened!

Hey raidarr, I'm CJ, the founder of New QP (pointless, since you already know me on Discord, but thought it was still worth). I just wanted to say I'm sorry for what Brazilian User did. I'll make sure he'll be blacklisted from being an admin and Bureaucrat. Also, sorry for the inactivity. I kinda lost interest in New QP, but still want to handle it. I'll also demote Robin for promoting an user as an admin despite the incompetence. Also, it's my fault for not doing anything. I should have acted sooner. Sorry. CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 10:58, November 19, 2023 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to burn the place down, I just want people to stop and think. Robin is passionate enough and not a bad guy, he's just made poor choices because he has no guidelines and, I assume, very little experience. I can share something more substantial later but the key is to try and get a handle on this ship. For all admins to work together instead of working behind each other's back, and for them to know what they are doing. It starts by seriously looking at criticism and seeing what can be done about it and not deleting it and blocking people over it like a rerun of the worst of QP that lead it to closure in the first place. In your case I think you need to find an adept deputy or two who can be hands that steer the ship. I made a few suggestions on discord already, though Tali is the only one I'd recommend at the bureaucrat level if available and interested. --Raidarr (talk) 11:07, November 19, 2023 (UTC)

Okay, the promised 'more substantial'.

• I did not want to see Brazilian User blocked. He made a poor choice and already lost adminship for it, a block on top is needlessly punitive. However only Original Authority can/should change this decision, as the platform owner who put the block in place.
• As suggested on Discord I would like to see the Moderator rank brought back to life from original QP. This role would bring in new staffers, be a lower stakes way to 'step back' for admins while still being useful, and allow leading admins and bureaucrats to build them up. This rank would be able to handle protection, issue blocks for spam/vandalism/emergencies, and be able to deal with everyday issues, but defer to more senior admins if there is a sticky problem. Candidates for this could include Robin, SuperStreetKombat, Money, and I've looked up a handful of other users here to see if they show potential as I don't like the thought of only one staff member being 'local' to new QP. These users could either stick with moderator, or accept higher responsibility later with administrator if they show leadership potential.
• There should be a backup bureaucrat or two to deal with technical problems and staff management. Tali is the only pick I can think of as someone with the required temperament, skills and experience. I am not going to do this permanently so at best I'd be a temporary choice. This could leave the "admin only" spot vacant for a while, and frankly that's okay as long as things get done. Someone like Robin or SSK could get into that role soon if all goes well.
• There need to be better structured discussions where to go from here. I intend to draft a page for admin requests (including requests for rights), clean up the main page talk as the community hub, and
• The rule 14 problem needs to end. It's not even rule 14 anymore after OA made a pass but I should be very clear, this rule is not reasonable and has only caused issues. Pages should be allowed if they follow the page rules of the wiki and are attributed correctly, preferably with a true import but a template to mention the original source would do.
• Depending who gets into staff we all need to be on the same page. I do things differently than Robin who'd do things differently from SSK. Each of us have our strengths and weaknesses. These need to balance out and we cannot have infighting. Conflicts should be taken straight to talk page, never appear as an edit/action war, and any substantial decisions like hiring or a policy change should be discussed. Nor can it be ignored if someone is going off the rail. This is where having a comanager is necessary and anyone who's a candidate needs to be straightened before they become a member of staff. Maybe have them read this blurb as a primer. If you are burnt out on doing this stuff then someone needs to be the deputy who can. Original Authority has stepped in as of late when he should not need to.

Anyway, I'll start working on clerical stuff seeing as I appear to be an admin now. --Raidarr (talk) 23:32, November 19, 2023 (UTC)

Hi Raidarr! Thanks for changing that stupid rule!

But there is another problem: the "Rule" page must be blocked from editing access because many non-administrator users can edit the rules or delete them. Roger (talk) 02:05, November 24, 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, I thought protecting it before creation would work but I look back and it clearly did not. --Raidarr (talk) 02:17, November 24, 2023 (UTC)

What's an Autopatrolled?

I've been added to this role, and i'm sort of confused of what it's supposed to do. Chadook (talk) 17:59, November 26, 2023 (UTC)

It's not expected to do anything, rather it is a role given by admins as a mark of trust - in your case for making solid edits and pages. It has a few tricks like importing pages and deleting unnecessary redirects. Since you're here I'll mention I'm also open to you as a moderator if that's something you'd like to try, see Qualitipedia:Staff if so. --Raidarr (talk) 21:59, November 26, 2023 (UTC)

That makes much more sense, and thank you.:D

Thanks for the offer, but at the moment, i'm not sure if i'm ready for this yet xD. Chadook (talk) 18:57, November 29, 2023 (UTC)

No trouble at all, best of luck on continued editing and feel free to reach out if there are any issues. --Raidarr (talk) 21:42, November 29, 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to ask; How would a mediocre show be structured? Chadook (talk) 20:19, December 1, 2023 (UTC)

This is my ideal for in between pages (actually all of them but one step at a time): After plot/synopsis, lead off with a strong reception section. That's the key to all of this: a summary of how the media was taken, perhaps highlighting when it started to get more criticism or started to shape up, etc. This is your chance to summarize why it was mediocre without going straight into partisan lists of pointers. You can see how this priority would help with controversial media too: explain the controversy and then get into points. If it's mediocre and done this way, feel free to then follow with negative qualities since these drag down what may have been a more positive reception. Likewise for controversial media. I like this approach for good/bad as well but naturally it makes more sense to lead into why it was received well for good media. --Raidarr (talk) 20:31, December 1, 2023 (UTC)

For example, if i ever wanted to put This one with the IMDB rating of 6, I would need to make a reception section beforehand, right?

Sorry for the late response, i had other priorities... Chadook (talk) 21:22, December 6, 2023 (UTC)

Whats with the new comment scetion?

Is this a one time thing or is it going to be like this for now on? Batboy234 (talk) 21:01, December 1, 2023 (UTC)

It's intended to be the new one as it is enabled on new pages automatically, has an edit function, and generally has less bugs - although there might be a few quirks to getting it to display, that is being worked out. --Raidarr (talk) 21:34, December 1, 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but is the "Add Title" part really necessary? Batboy234 (talk) 22:48, December 1, 2023 (UTC)

Not really, but unless someone modifies the extension to remove it/make it optional that is the tradeoff from using the old version. --Raidarr (talk) 00:42, December 2, 2023 (UTC)

Now hold on a minute: if the way we write comments on pages has been changed, then does that mean that all of the old ones that were written up to now before the change have been removed entirely? Like, they won't be visible on pages anymore, let alone in the comments log? SuperStreetKombat (talk) 04:59, December 2, 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned in the sitenotice and on the most recent discussion of the Staff Noticeboard, Raidarr mentioned that the original comments will be kept for a week. Afterwards, they'll be removed. Then again, users can just look at the old diffs of the page, and the comments log to see the original comments before the change took effect.

Right now, I am removing the comments section on pages that doesn't have any comments yet, since it would look weird seeing two comments sections together. Not to mention, CommentStreams can only be displayed at the bottom most area of the page and can't be placed elsewhere, so it looks awkward seeing the comments header with an "empty" section. Snow (talk) 05:12, December 2, 2023 (UTC)

Well, I understand attempting to innovate this wiki a bit, but I'm not so sure about giving comment sections a complete overhaul, since the old comments before this change happened will be gone a week from now, and I'd like them to be preserved so that users who missed out on certain discussions can enter them or so that people could actually look back at the old comments they or others have posted and see how nostalgic they could be or they could realize just how immature they could be and learn from.

I know that, like you said, users can use old diffs to see revisions of old comments before this change, but that doesn't sound all that convenient, and, again, I hope that there's a way to keep the old comments around on the pages they were on without having them go away from the internet entirely. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 06:46, December 2, 2023 (UTC)

The comments log should continue to exist actually, and I was thinking more two weeks instead of just one. The 15th seems like a generous time to nix them properly, and a little more than promised.

I do understand removing the comments is a loss and there are two reasons, beyond the fact that meaningfully altering the current system is nearly impossible and was always a technical irritation for Miraheze. Not a huge one but enough that it shouldn't have repeated here and I've already found it quite buggy. But this is it: 1. not a whole lot was done with them; the most substantial comment I have seen posted was my response to ChessGuy's blog asking for mod, and I'm okay reposting with a summary if that's needed. Other comments people can save (please do if you're attached to them, that's why we have this grace period) but in all they don't really form as integral a role as they did on old QP, such as when they were the main way to discuss blogs... nearly as many of those alone as there are pages now on new qp. There's over 1k but it's nothing like it once was. And 2. I'm not sure I like the idea of using them to point at people's immaturity, I'd rather they simply grow beyond it and the rest of the wiki as well.

I don't like data loss, but in the broader scale we should be betting on things that will remain in support and are least likely to fail, so we may as well make a critical move now instead of wait indefinitely for it to go buggy. This is part of why we haven't seen StructuredDiscussions come back - I would like to have it, but it was buggy on early testing and its developers no longer really care about it. So forcing it at the risk of just losing all our talk pages eventually was not the better choice. NQP is still new so it has to make these choices now rather than regret them later. Preserving the old comments would be a fairly large amount of work for not a lot of return and would still have the mess of two comment systems being enabled.

But thank you for getting into this: it's good that someone asks/challenges and I am not inflexible, if you can find something here that I have missed. Another reason for the grace period - if it ultimately doesn't work out it doesn't need to happen. However I'm not convinced the old comment system is justified to stay.

The positioning of comments is awkward but I think I might be able to do something about that one if I get off my butt, brush off my javascript knowledge and inject a header into the comments area. It would be a little messy since the old comments header would need to go, but it would get a header to exist below the category bit which is ideal. More on that whenever it happens. --Raidarr (talk) 13:33, December 2, 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, I don’t think these new comments are working out, they’re just too complicated and confusing. Batboy234 (talk) 04:21, December 3, 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with you there, BatBoy. Sorry, Raidarr, I know you're trying to help build this wiki and all that, but I really don't think this new comment section thing will turn out well for most other users, and, believe it or not, it could end up being as controversial as the rule against copying and pasting pages was/is. Please don't cancel me for saying all that, BTW. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 07:15, December 3, 2023 (UTC)

You shall be alt F4'd for daring to disagree with Tyrant Raidarr.

Anyway I'm going to take a closer look and the process may be frozen or halted tonight depending what comes of it. --Raidarr (talk) 12:27, December 3, 2023 (UTC)

@SuperStreetKombat:, @Batboy234: and @March0307: (really need to fix up that template but that's another day): the change is reversed following multiple mixed to negative responses to a quick survey, in other words, old comments are back and any changes to deprecate the old comments should be reversed because that won't happen this year at the least. I'll try to spruce up presentation following suggestions by Snow and maybe work with OA to realize a good compromise between the two that retains history and gets the most features while still keeping ease of use. --Raidarr (talk) 18:51, December 3, 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for that comment I made earlier about the new comment system being controversial. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 04:39, December 4, 2023 (UTC)

There's never a need to apologize for a civil, honest, and thought out comment. As much as you may have exaggerated a bit. --Raidarr (talk) 14:09, December 4, 2023 (UTC)

Can you please unblock Robin1020th?

How is he likely a collaboration with Szczypak and Brazilian User. I am confused by all of this. He doesn't seem to be a sockpuppet at all. NewMarioBobFan (talk) 03:00, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

Technical evidence proves he is without a doubt. The block will not be undone at this time. --Raidarr (talk) 03:06, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, it's just disappointing to hear about Robin going down this path. I know he had his share of arrogance (even though he did try to calm down every once in a while), but I never expected him to resort to trolling or vandalism. Maybe there's some way someone from this wiki who can reason with him whenever one of us gets a hold of him. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 05:41, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to reach out on Discord I suppose where he would certainly be accessible, but I see no reason to bother personally. --Raidarr (talk) 22:02, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you put it this way, he's shown to be friends with these guys. And he also defended Brazilian User along with Szczy, when said ended up vandalizing the wiki after his demotion, and he and Szczy encouraged said user to not apologize for vandalism and spamming. It's also sketchy when you realize that when they mentioned something about their "plans" on Discord, it does feel suspicious that they're up to no good. Snow (talk) 03:08, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

I think I do get it. NewMarioBobFan (talk) 03:14, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

Why was CJ blocked

Why was CJ blocked? He's the guy who made this wiki in the first place. Did he really vandalize?

No. That was another user impersonating him. Since the real CJ has his username end with a 5 and not a 4. Look closely at their names and you'll see that they're not the same person. Snow (talk) 14:18, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay--CheeseGuy17 (talk) 14:31, December 9, 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Splash, Dash, and Smash for the Crown!/Slowking's Crowning! (Pokémon)

Could you please take a look at my message here? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 00:25, December 23, 2023 (UTC)

Later on, yes. In short if you want my reccommendation, get out of the narrow "positive/negative" box, and structure the page in a balanced way where it does not matter which pointers are first. But this is an overall preference that many editors may not understand or wish to follow here. --Raidarr (talk) 11:46, December 23, 2023 (UTC)

That kind of ruins the fun though. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 14:06, December 23, 2023 (UTC)

It's boring if it's written that way. But I'll be straight with you Money, I'm not particularly interested in this and I will support whatever an admin/moderator decides if it's reasonable, because the wiki like any reception wiki qualitipedia is a joke on the wider internet, always has been, and inevitably will be. It is made fun of and a drama magnet regardless. So you're free to do what you wish and I'm just here to put out fires and see if someone halfway decent is a candidate to take over. --Raidarr (talk) 23:03, December 23, 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I would have thought it was boring the other way. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 02:41, December 24, 2023 (UTC)

Write it how you want my dude, it will be boring if you make it so and I see no use in going further than that. --Raidarr (talk) 11:46, December 24, 2023 (UTC)

A bit of an emergency here

I found out recently that a Disney fanboy attacked us for including Disney on this wiki and wanted this wiki to be shut down and removed some films of one of the pointers from the page and is currently accusing CJ for being a Disney hater, could you please deal with this. GreenGreen (talk) 14:09, December 29, 2023 (UTC)

And yes, his name is DisneyFan12414 and he also made a comment on the page, about the page being cringe. GreenGreen (talk) 14:11, December 29, 2023 (UTC)

Quick favor

I wouldn't necessarily reach out like this but since you're an admin, can you delete the "Kill Bill (SZA song)" page and block "Da$un42GetsGF" (indefinitely) for me please? Because the former page I mentioned was somehow made after it was deleted due to the fact that it was on an already existing wiki, (which was the Excellent Music Wiki) which the said page doesn't belong here because it belongs on the said wiki, and as for the latter I asked for, it's because the said user who recreated it, (Da$unGetsGF), they are a sockpuppet who has had a history with excessive vandalism on the music wikis and abusing multiple accounts, whenever they get blocked for giving me a rough time by saying that I'll be "blocked" if I revert their (vandalism) edits, excessive vandalism and abusing multiple accounts, they apparently keep on coming back just to cause even more trouble. (Reminder is that I do not stylize my username with dollar signs ($), "Da" or anything like that), the said sockpuppet I'm also talking about is these "IGetG" accounts that we've had to block on the music wikis several times due to excessive vandalism and abusing multiple accounts and because I'm afraid that they might come back for more, I do not want them to cause problems on here by vandalizing an article on here, so if you see any of those accounts, (like "IGetGF" or anything simulator or like that), can you block them for me and deleted the aforementioned page? TheSun42 (talk) 03:06, December 30, 2023 (UTC)

Handled by someone else but since this is cross platform vandalism I'll keep a special eye out. --Raidarr (talk) 10:25, December 30, 2023 (UTC)

Thanks enough for understanding, I don't want them to cause even more problems on here, and if they're adding a page on here (which was already a page made on EMW, like the said deleted page), you can tell it's them. TheSun42 (talk) 15:01, December 30, 2023 (UTC)

great IGetG has spread from EMW and HMW to here ToTheEdge (talk) 17:54, March 21, 2024 (UTC)

How do I create an article?

Dear Raidarr,

Thank you for bringing back a reformed version of Qualitipedia. A while after I had created a page on Fox News, I came back to create another page, this time for RT. However, I saw no place to create a new article, so I simply have it in my sandbox. Likely, there are some steps that I need to go through, like making a certain number of edits or reaching the distinction of being a confirmed user. So how do I achieve such a privilege?

Best Regards

Awildderper. Awildderperisback (talk) 19:54, January 6, 2024 (UTC)

Thank CJ, the founder. I just provide fire support on the side. All the same, welcome.

As for writing a page you should be able to just add it to the mainspace, you can put the name into your browser URL and create it from there or make a link the same way you did to make a subpage in your sandbox. When the sandbox is good you can also simply ask it be moved to mainspace, or just get 10 edits / be here 4 days and be able to move it yourself (preferably not leaving a redirect). Let me know via reply if you'd like this to be done earlier as your page seems pretty far along except for malformed media embeds at the bottom. --Raidarr (talk) 22:09, January 6, 2024 (UTC)

Can I talk about a certain user?

I'd like to speak with you about FreezingTNT, and how he recently removed the videos from a certain page. Granted the film was very controversial and receives quite a bit of hate, but I doubt the user had to go this far with it. I tried to talk with him, but he insisted on the edit. What do you think? SpaceProtagonist (talk) 01:55, January 26, 2024 (UTC)

Part of this is the edit warring, I'd really like to see people start working it out on the talk page and not force an admin to intervene outright. Of course if they refuse to communicate an admin should be pulled in. --Raidarr (talk) 09:57, January 26, 2024 (UTC)

The reason I removed the videos and links from the Cuties Uglies page is to avoid the risk of pedophiles looking at them, as the links contain the promo material and I'm worried that the videos (which I haven't seen) might also contain the sexualized shots/scenes/etc. Pedo bait, well, baits pedophiles.

FreezingTNT (talk) 02:09, January 26, 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to remove content the decent thing you can do is watch to confirm it does what you assert it might be doing. Now I have to look into them myself and override you if you've simply made it up out of a misguided desire to moralize. I'm afraid I expect the latter but I will look into it. --Raidarr (talk) 09:29, January 26, 2024 (UTC)

Videos in order:

1. Criticism, appropriate censor.
2. Criticism, appropriate censor.
3. Criticism, nothing to censor.
4. News reporting, I mean seriously.
5. Reporting/summary nothing to censor.
6. Criticism, appropriate censor.
7. Criticism, censored.
8. Alternate perspective, nothing to censor.
9. Criticism, nothing to censor. In fact it's a rather dull video and brings nothing to the table, it could be removed with no loss.

External links: these are bloody typical reviews, I don't care if they have 'promotional material' it does not justify their removal and doing so removes any credence the page might have. Undone.

I have completely undone the edits you have made and you will not remake them or you will incur a page block. It's not your job to police what possible bad people might access out of otherwise innocuous pages they could just as easily find for themselves. If you want to make sweeping changes like this take it up on the talk page and get others to agree with you. I will not humor a repeat of the behavior that caused your removal on the last set of wikis.

--Raidarr (talk) 09:48, January 26, 2024 (UTC)

Can you at least tell me whether or not the 4th video has any bad footage or posters, since you've seen the video?

Also, as for bad people possibly finding the footage and posters themselves, adding in/not removing the videos still gives them access to them (even if you may be right that the videos don't show any). I also know for certain that the Rotten Tomatoes, iMDB and Metacritic pages that are linked to in the page show the trailer and possibly the pedo bait poster, and they should be removed.

I also disagree with the idea of watching any Uglies videos for myself. I'm not risking seeing any bad footage or posters, let alone increasing the view counts in the event that any videos do contain them.

FreezingTNT (talk) 15:08, January 26, 2024 (UTC)

I had no issue with #4.

So, it doesn't show the poster or any footage?

FreezingTNT (talk) 01:01, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

I do not buy the logic for removing the three pages as mentioned, you are running a crusade that crosses the line into unnecessary censorship and I will not support it. Frankly the youtube videos might have references the type you'd take issue with in the description, it is no problem so I did not even check given their subject matter. Total non issue. Exacerbated by the fact you're not bothered to review things yourself before casting judgement. Frankly that entirely disqualifies your perspective on the matter in my book. --Raidarr (talk) 00:55, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. We should be able to prevent pedophiles and anyone else, ESPECIALLY other creeps, from seeing the movie and/or its footage and/or poster as much as we can. It is inherently everyone's responsibility to help others whenever we can. Inaction is basically enabling them to do these things.

And it's justified to never see or even let into/allow in my/your/anyone's/everyone's eyesight of anything and/or everything involving the subject matter and/or anything related, as again, I am not willing to/don't want to increase and/or let anyone and/or everyone increase any view counts in the event it is true that any web pages, sites, videos, etc. contain bad things (for example: the poster, footage from the film, etc.) so that children will never be harmed by any new views from anyone and/or everyone.

FreezingTNT (talk) 01:01, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

Please do not continue to update this note, I am unconvinced regardless and if you do update it be sure to do it in one go as I should not have 18 notifications from a single response. --Raidarr (talk) Raidarr (talk) 02:11, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

I get not wanting to be constantly notified, but I'm trying to make my point clear to any pedophiles who ever see this discussion so that they wouldn't do any bad things to kids.

FreezingTNT (talk) 02:17, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

Rest assured every second of this conversation would not be a deterrent. Everything you've written smacks of naivety. At every turn they'd meet ridicule and incomplete at best material. Cuties for what it does can do incredibly little and any perverse gratification from promotional materials on a review page that puts them down would be pathetic. It would be infinitely easier for them to literally use google and there is absolutely no reason to go through a page that ridicules them to reviews that also ridicule them to see a stupid poster they can literally just google. This is why I haven't taken you very seriously, your position is completely illogical and assumes predators are absolute morons. Sure, they are, but in a different way. It's misguided moralizing at best and at worst it's for your personal gratification in a case where you can just not look at the particular material you don't like, ie, the poster, a rather critical piece to understanding what went so wrong. There is a mature warning at the top of the page, anything further is a waste of time. I'm not going to reply further on this so I'd rather you shovel out your case on the cuties talk page because I'm not particularly interested in the reply. --Raidarr (talk) 09:27, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm assuming that any pedophiles or other creeps who read, have decided to read or are reading any web pages containing things such as the poster, whether or not for curiosity or other reasons, will be sexually pleased upon seeing said things and then the consequences/results I've mentioned above and in other discussions many times will happen. I don't blindly assume that anyone who is a pedophile, child predator/molester/sexual harasser/abuser/anyone who has sex with anyone who is under the age of 18 (including and ESPECIALLY babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, etc.) or anyone who watches, sees, possesses, downloads, distributes, sells, shares or is involved in the creation of any child porn or any other creep is smart enough to listen to things that aren't as elaborate as possible AT ALL. Because what if any points opposing the types of bad people I've been talking about the whole time aren't as elaborate as possible?

If we don't stop any of the consequences I've mentioned many times here and in other discussions, then it enables pedophiles and other creeps to do these things. Inaction leads to consequences, and it is everyone's responsibility to help anyone who is innocent whenever they can. FreezingTNT (talk) 15:11, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

Request for abuse filter access

I am aware of persistent vandalism on this wiki and would like abuse filter access to help reduce it. While the abuse filters you currently have in place do a decent job at stopping such vandalism, there is room for improvement (particularly regarding large content removal), which I'd like to fix. Tali64³ (talk) 20:43, January 26, 2024 (UTC)

Per my response to your comment on Discord, I will accept administrator permissions since those are the only permissions with abuse filter access. Tali64³ (talk) 00:28, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. --Raidarr (talk) 00:53, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

I still can't view abuse filters for some reason; it might be a cache issue, but it could also be a group right problem. Tali64³ (talk) 01:00, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

Administrators seem to have permissions to access AbuseFilter, as they should—is this still happening? -- Original Authority (talk) 03:55, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

I can access abuse filters fine now. Tali64³ (talk) 04:08, January 27, 2024 (UTC)

This is 9 days late, and very sorry for the necropost, but I figured out the issue — the perms for AbuseFilter were changed recently upstream, and a lot of them were renamed/shuffled about, which meant that ManageWiki didn't recognise the change and that is why you couldn't view it. Just in case you were wondering :P -- Original Authority (talk) 00:12, February 5, 2024 (UTC)

YouTube-related pages

Hi, I noticed that the page YouTube's COPPA policy was deleted by Original Authority for being unrelated. I think that YouTube removes the dislike counter would fall under this category too. However, I think that I could move both pages to Wretched YouTube Videos Wiki since that wiki is more related to YouTube. I would like to get your permission to move the pages, and I would also appreciate it if you could restore the YouTube's COPPA policy page temporarily since it has to still exist on the wiki for me to export and import it to WYTVW. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 00:32, February 10, 2024 (UTC)

Done; the debate about what WYTVW's main page should be named is not, however. Tali64³ (talk) 01:49, February 10, 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, in fact the Dhar Mann and any other youtube pages can do this as well.

Btw, it is very poor form to 'move war' pages (regarding WYTVW), that should have gone to a talk page the instant there was a disagreement. This talk page, over there, whatever, better than not doing it. --Raidarr (talk) 10:28, February 10, 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Dhar Mann, it is considered a web series. I myself disagreed with it being on TSEW and argued against it for a period of time, but I was eventually convinced it was indeed a web series. So in short, Dhar Mann should probably stay here on that basis. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 00:41, February 11, 2024 (UTC)

Call it what you like, it is a series on youtube and that is how it will be judged before all else. You've simply offered the excuse making the exception for why it is still permitted here, despite it causing a permanent tricky point as people will inevitably bend the definition to support more and more youtube content. --Raidarr (talk) 09:30, February 11, 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no definition for what a web series is according to this wiki; this has resulted in a lot of YouTube videos being posted here despite them not really fitting on the grounds of being a "web series." Hence I propose the following definition of a web series: a series of Internet videos with a continuous story or setting produced by a well-known entertainment studio or which airs on a streaming service. This will hopefully cut down on the amount of YouTube overlap. Tali64³ (talk) 14:27, February 11, 2024 (UTC)

Well-known entertainment studio is a bit of an unnecessary requirement. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 22:12, February 11, 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, companies such as Nickelodeon release web series for their IPs on places such as YouTube; if the requirement weren't there, then such series would be on the YouTube wikis, which might not necessarily be a bad thing but would be somewhat confusing. Tali64³ (talk) 22:17, February 11, 2024 (UTC)

But what I mean is, I don't think they should have to be made by a "well-known entertainment studio." Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 02:57, February 13, 2024 (UTC)

Without this distinction, it would be very easy to claim that a couple of videos made by kids with cameras is a web series, defeating the whole point of the discussion, which is to limit what is considered a web series. If the requirement is swapped out for one that there must be a company behind the series, then it would be quite difficult to determine whether a company is genuine or not. The well-known entertainment studio requirement is the best option. Tali64³ (talk) 03:01, February 13, 2024 (UTC)

You could require it to be made by multiple people. Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 20:46, February 13, 2024 (UTC)

"Multiple people" barely narrows down anything; people can claim that their videos are a web series because their friend helped them position the camera in one "episode". An improvement might be "made by more than one person with significant involvement", but that definition would still be highly absuable. Tali64³ (talk) 20:50, February 13, 2024 (UTC)

NFromMurderDrones

This user sent me a foe request for no apparent reason. Could you please block them? Money12123 (contribs | sandbox) 21:09, February 18, 2024 (UTC)

Done. Tali64³ (talk) 21:50, February 18, 2024 (UTC)

Simian Says (PPG 1998)

Can I get that page back ? I wanna put some addition in it. KENNY STEWART 6284 (talk) 12:32, April 18, 2024 (UTC)

Restored and transferred to your sandbox, please ensure all sections are complete and halfway decent before moving to mainspace. The page also has some bias criticisms to work out: ensure you've gone over the reception, have a few links and that the page itself is arranged proper to the reception. --raidarr (💬) 13:36, April 18, 2024 (UTC)