MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
(Overdue) |
||
Line 409: | Line 409: | ||
Well it's obvious this one isn't working so would you consider it deleting? {{User|Marioguy1}} | Well it's obvious this one isn't working so would you consider it deleting? {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
::::....I guess you're right, maybe I should not embarrass myself any further. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}}} | ::::....I guess you're right, maybe I should not embarrass myself any further. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}}} | ||
===Making Articles for Keys=== | |||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">Don't make articles for Keys 0-15</span> | |||
I think we should make articles on different keys in the Mario series. The reason this came to me is because I found an article, [[Station Key]], on a key in Paper Mario: TTYD. Then I thought that if this key article can be made, then we can make a whole bunch of key articles, for example, Pit Key (found in the Pit of 100 Trials) and Dimension Key (found in the Whoa Zone) from Super Paper Mario. I made those redirects to Key for now. | |||
There are 27 key articles. | |||
{{scroll box|content= | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': 19 September, 2010, 9:00 GMT<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': 26 September, 2010, 23:59 GMT.<br> | |||
====Support==== | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} This will result in many un-needed stubs which will take up space. I don't even know why the Station Key article is there. The information is definitely covered somewhere else. Why else do you think your previous Paper Mario proposal failed? | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Yet again, unneeded articles which will end up as stubs. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, the keys do not have sufficient information about them to make good articles, also they are not notable enough for it. | |||
#{{User|JF}} They're just the same thing with a different name. | |||
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} "List of Keys" would be a good article. The "Station Key" should be merged into "Key". | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Keys are keys, why give them all their own articles? They are too minor and simply belong in the Key article. | |||
#{{User|YourBuddyBill}} List of keys should be made, or better yet, just put it all in the keys article. Make sure to merge in all the pics as well, though, as otherwise it's somewhat pointless. | |||
#{{User|Smasher 101}}List of Keys is a good idea.Seperate Key articles?Absolutely not.We don't need a lot of useless stubs. | |||
#{{User|Mechayoshi}} They would just be stubs. Okay idea but not for that. | |||
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Changed my mind. Will make list of keys. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. I'd even like to merge some of the existing key articles into a list (that's been proposed at least once before, though it didn't pass). | |||
#{{User|WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Commander Code-8}} There should just be an article containing a list of keys. | |||
#{{User|Mathew10}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Shouldn't this be a TPP on [[Talk:Key]]?{{User|Knife}} | |||
Another Paper Mario pointless item page creation proposal? Why don't we just make a List of Keys or something? {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | |||
I concur, this proposal should be a Talk Page Proposal, as this obviously does not involve the the Wiki itself. {{User|Emperor Yoshi}} | |||
:A TPP on Station Key would be concerning the Key article itself, this one is about creating articles that are keys. The badge one is very similar, it would have been a TPP on Badges if we went by what you were saying. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | |||
@Mileycyrussoulja: You oppose your own proposal? Surely this is eligible for deletion. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} | |||
:No. Just because he doesn't support doesn't mean the idea no longer has merit; someone, somewhere might think it's a good idea. Lack of support isn't a good enough reason to delete a proposal, and it's actually better if proposals reach the deadline whenever possible - it gives us solid decisions to refer back to if policies or articles are called into question later on. Plus, the archives look better if they're mostly pass/fails, and not a bunch of cancellations. - {{User|Walkazo}}}} | |||
===The Science of Video Games=== | |||
<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">Don't make such user subpages 2-15</span> | |||
I believe that user sub-pages relating to theories and the like should be exempt from the Userspace 'guidelines', as they ought to be put somewhere. If not on sub-pages, then maybe in the talk page or the article itself. See my example on [[Talk:Ztar]]. PLEASE LIST WHERE THEY SHOULD GO! | |||
{{scroll box|content= | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|YourBuddyBill}}<br> | |||
'''Voting start''': 17:11, 22 September 2010 <br> | |||
'''Deadline''': 23:59, 29 September 2010 | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|YourBuddyBill}} Please say which space this stuff ought to go in. I think that the science of video games is very underappreciated, and could start much thought-provoking discussion over matters. | |||
#{{User|Mechayoshi}} Okay now that I can vote. per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} It's opinion and speculation so doesn't belong on the Wiki. Plus, do you think people will read all of that on Talk:Ztar, especially when it's just speculation? | |||
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Speculation. If you can't share it on the forums, just keep it to yourself. We don't need theories cluttering up talkpages. | |||
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per Fawfulfury and MCD. | |||
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, speculation does not belong on this wiki, this wiki tells factual information about the Mario series, thus we can not have wild theories about Mario, I advise you to go to the Mario fanon wiki to make pages about your theories | |||
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} I like science and all, but it is speculation and it doesn't fit this wiki. | |||
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out. | |||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | |||
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per 22's comment | |||
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Mario lives in a different universe from us, so it would be nearly impossible to explain what is happening. All physics, all elements, all matter, everything is different. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Anyone can pull a theory out of their butt and place it on the page, making us look really unprofessional. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I could say that Luigi isn't a human at all! The nose could be a mysterious appendage used to generate electricity and sense where Mario is! No. Most of this would be speculation. | |||
#{{User|Booderdash}} Mario has NO science in it. WHat are you talking about? Its a game series about MUSHROOMS making people grow larger. You want science, look in a chemistry book. You want fun, play Mario. Also, if you really want sciencecal video games, Resident Evil has it the most, and so does those "virus" games. | |||
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mr bones}} BLOF, Mario isn't real...anyways, the point is, you can't explain how a maple leaf turns mario into a raccoon. In other words, if we does that, everyone will say his theory is the best and it will be a wikitastrophy. Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Well, you need to give a time for the voting to start and end. {{User|Emperor Yoshi}} | |||
See [http://kamikazekoopa.proboards38.com/index.cgi Mariology], one of our affiliates. It is expressly dedicated to this sort of content. {{user|Twentytwofiftyseven}} | |||
:Or go to the forums and make a topic called "The Theory of Mario"; that would actually be a pretty funny topic :P {{User|Marioguy1}} | |||
Forums tend to glitch up for me, not showing dates of topics or posts, so I usually get in lots of trouble for necroposting. {{User|YourBuddyBill}} | |||
Votes that were made before the voting period started remain invalid even after it starts. If we allowed anything else, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a "voting period". {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}}} |
Revision as of 22:15, September 29, 2010
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template Remove Fake Bans/WarningsRemove Fake Bans/Warnings 30-0 OK, now that I royally screwed up my last proposal, let's try this again: Proposer: Ralphfan (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsNow that I've realized the full effects of my other one, let's just get on with this. Ralphfan (talk)
This only covers ban notices and warning notices. Navboxes are OK. Ralphfan (talk)
So, will the other one get deleted? Tucayo (talk) Once enough admins agree, I guess. Ralphfan (talk) @2257: To answer your question, a fake template is when a user uses the HTML code for the template rather than the template itself. That way, you don't see the list of pages that links to it on the bottom. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Can this include fake maintenance templates too? Booderdash (talk)
@MrConcreteDonkey: {{construction}} isn't allowed in userpace. Ralphfan (talk)
@MG1: Construction templates aren't fake, they just aren't allowed in userspace. Ralphfan (talk) @Ralphfan: I'll support if you add fake maintenance templates on since they have as much significanse as the fake warnings and tal pages. Also, can fake talk page proposals on user talks be banned too? Booderdash (talk) @MrConcreteDonkey: Yes, yes they are. :) Bowser's luma (talk)
I don't know what's the big issue on fake construction templates. They are on user pages. What makes you think a USERpage needs rewrite or more images uploaded? I think the people who put fake templates on their page just have some sense of humor, not a sense of immaturity. Of course, opinions differ for each person. Bottom-line: fake rewrites do no harm at all. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Alright, sorry LGM and BLOF. I guessed since you opposed the last one immediately, but I guessed wrong and forgot that the 1st one was for all fake templates. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
Do you think anyone will fall for this???: (Removed, due to its contents altering the scrollbox template)
OH, PLEASE! Who in the right mind would agree with that hacked template? Also, Per MrConcreteDonkey. Takes up space and is worthless. Sacorguy79 (talk)
Papermario97 (talk) I feel stupid but, what does "per all" mean?
Making Paper Mario Badge Attack ArticlesDo not create Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles 9-14 I think we should make articles on attacks in the first two Paper Marios that you can only use by the use of a badge (i.e. Quake Hammer, Multibounce). It would be necessary to the wiki, since these ARE attacks of Mario's, and even if he needs a badge to use them they still are attacks of his. Proposer: Mileycyrussoulja (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWouldn't this be better as a Pipe Project? MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Agreed. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Couldn't this be done by making an article that contains all the Badge Effects (if such an article doesn't exist already)? Frostyfireyoshi (talk) Its already done in the Badge article. But the MOVES need seperate articles because they're MOVES. Booderdash (talk)
@Booderdash: Do you realize how many stubs we're gonna have here? Fawfulfury65 (talk) @Frosty, no like how Multibonk has an article, we make articles for Tornado Jump, Power Jump, Power Smash, Ice Smash etc. @FF65, I don't see how we're going to have that many stubs. I mean they're as important as the special moves for Mario Power Tennis. And the moves can be explained in detail. They're also better than Plane Mario. Booderdash (talk) Well, if all attack badges are given their own articles, shouldn't ALL badges have separate articles? Emperor Yoshi (talk) Why? All other badges only give effects that can be explained with one line. In attacks, many sentences can be written, and it won't be a stub All the other badges will be stubs. Booderdash (talk) Well, you can not always "write many sentences" for every attack badge, most of them do things that warrant only a sentence or two. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Not the attack BADGE, but the ATTACK. Like Power Bounce. I don't see how thats less of an importance than Multibonk. Booderdash (talk) Well, I fail to see how that would work with any positive affects. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Then explain why Multibonk, Kiss Thief, Power Lift etc. has articles, because they're just attacks too. Booderdash (talk) Um..., Gamefreak, I think you're misunderstanding us. We DON'T want to create articles for BADGES, we want to create articles for ATTACKS like Tornado Jump, Ice Smash, and Power Bounce. Booderdash (talk) Well, two of those three you said should not have articles, If a certain type of badge has an article, they all must, it is one of are policies. Making an article on a badge attack but not the badge itself, that would simply not work. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Look, you probablt don't even have the game. The badge only ALLOWS you to use the attack, but we want to make an article ON the attack. Like Kiss Thief, and Power Lift. So that is ok. Booderdash (talk) Well, me having the game has nothing to do with this wiki, the badge is functionally what you need to use the attack, thus if the attack deserves a page, the Badge does too. What I mean is, the badge page is created, with the attack in it, if it is created at all, wich it should not. Emperor Yoshi (talk) No, the BADGE name is the EXACT same as the attack so Tornado Jump the badge would be the same thing as the attack. You would need the game to understand, thats why I mentioned it. Booderdash (talk) Well, I can not under stand you reasoning, what I meant to say was to make a page of the BADGE not the ATTACK, if make the pages at all. Emperor Yoshi (talk) The proposal is about making the attack! Not the badge! Badges only invoke the attacks.Mr bones (talk) Well, I know that, the pages badge or Attack should not be created, they would cause many stubs, just because they are attacks does not mean they are notable enough for a page. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Any badge attack is notable like any other one. That's why Booderdash said that you should have the game!Mr bones (talk) Well, any badge is as important as it's own attack are each other. Also, The fact about me not having has no say in the matter. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Yes it does. It means you don't understand the concept of the attack. You NEED the game to understand or maybe just the original Paper Mario. And the badge isn't important, which you'll clearly know if you have the game, its the ATTACK that is. Booderdash (talk) Well, the badge and the attack it causes have functionally the same notability, the attacks are are slightly altered versions of Mario's normal attacks. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Is it? Multibonk is the exact same as Headbonk, but repeated alot of times, and Power Bounce is a jump repeated alot of times. Booderdash (talk) Booderdash, It sounds like you are agreeing with me, the pages you want to be made should not be made because they are not notable enough. The attack badges attacks simply alter Mario's (or his partner's) by adding an effect. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Aha! But you see thing thing is they DO have articles, and for THIS consistency to work, we need to make articles for this, since I doubt many people will agree on deleting those articles anways. Booderdash (talk) Booderdash, the badges nor their effects do not have articles, they are not notable enough for their own articles. Emperor Yoshi (talk) All, the badges are merged together, so why on earth can't we just merge all the attacks? Fawfulfury65 (talk) Agreed, but the badge attacks are already merged. Emperor Yoshi (talk) I guess we could just merge them all. But I just have a feeling not man people would agree on it. I don't know, I guess we can try. (We need to mae a proposal about it first though.) But another thing to note, none of the moves like Multibonk are stubs, so I don't see how Power Bounce will be a stub either. Booderdash (talk) Baby Mario Bloops, there are only 10ish attacks in Ttyd, and I doubt all of them are going to be stubs. Booderdash (talk) Well, there is not sufficient proof that the pages would be long enough not to be stubs, not to mention, the badges(and/or their effects) are not notable enough anyway for pages. Emperor Yoshi (talk) They wouldn't be stubs because Multibonk isn't a stub, and Power Bounce is practically the same thing. Plus things like Ice Smash has even MORE detail (like Freezeing) to be put into the article. Booderdash (talk) Well, Multibonk is not a badge attack, and powerbounce equals Multibonk, Ice smash has little information that could be produced about it. The badge attacks are only the effects the badge has on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Thats my POINT. How comes MULTIBONK gets an article, while Power Bounce doesn't? Its basically just Partner's attacks VS Mario's attacks. Booderdash (talk) Why does everyone keep on thinking we're making the article about the badge? We're making it about the ATTACK. Booderdash (talk) Well, how many time do I have to tell you; the badge causes the "attack," and the "attacks" are simply effects on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks, nothing more nothing less. This is why the do well as a list, they do not have that much information about them that is different from the normal attacks. Emperor Yoshi (talk) I don't care about that, I mean practically everyone else thinks that we're making it ON the badge. Booderdash (talk) Well, You do not care, not they do not, they think (hopefully) that the badge is equal to the attack, neither of them deserves an article. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Well, if they have the game, they would know that it wasn't. Btw, I think MCS made the description rather misleading and I bet is confusing people... Booderdash (talk) You are getting of topic, enough about having the game, it does not always matter, in terms of what you are trying to do. I do not have the game and I understand completely what you are trying to do. Emperor Yoshi (talk) No, you don't understand. Its because you don't have the game. I mean so according to your logic, if FPS fanboys say Mario is for kiddy wimps and that they understand that, that means they're right. Its because they never played the game! You always need to either watch the movie, read the book, or play the game before you understand things about it. Booderdash (talk) I can understand giving a few of the badge specific attack their own articles but there probably won't be enough there to make a good article. A couple probably might if they appeared in more than just one of the Paper Mario games. Garlic Stapler (talk) Well Booderdash, lets get back on topic, what do you mean "It's because they never played the game," you can understand the game if you read it's own article on this wiki. Also Stapler, we can not give just give a few of them pages, we have to give all of them pages or none of them, it is one of our policies. Emperor Yoshi (talk) All your doing is nitpicking an issue if your going to create seperat articles for attacks then you need to make seperate articles for everything mrblob1012 (talk) Well, Read what I said again, you obviously do not know what I mean, and it is one of our policies, not a guideline. Read our policies again and come back after you do so. Also, please speak more clearly. Emperor Yoshi (talk) Make a "No Spam" Usertalk Page PolicyMake a No Spam Usertalk Page Policy 22-0 Recently, a bunch of friends of mine (you know who you are) placed a lot of images in my talk page. Though it was funny at first, it considerably stretched my userpage and extended it, so it gave me really bad loading times. Same goes for copying text from certain articles and placing them into my talk page, which also extends it until the loading server lags extensively just to load up my talk page in case it has new messages. What I'm proposing is a new policy to prevent "spamming" user talk pages with images or text (this also includes friendly encounters). "Spamming" the talk pages with a load of images and text not only gives it a big deal to load up a page and stretches it horizontally, it also gives users like me a hard time to navigate through them to find any new messages a user might put. Plus, we are forced to make another archive as soon as this occurs. I know I can just remove them myself, but it is much easier if the "spamming" is prevented in the first place. Any "spamming" of the past will be kept, but any future "spamming" will get immediately deleted in user talk pages. I do not think that spamming" improves talk pages in any way. Talk pages are supposed to be used for chatting with other users, rather than fill it up with useless content. It also makes it harder for the administration and others to work through the pages if they want to drop a comment or something. I'm also proposing this to be enforced, just in case it happens to any unwary user, ignorant user, or a user who just wants to play around with his/her friends. Proposer: BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWouldn't it be much easier if you just added a rule about this in your talk page? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
The problem is, people tend to ignore rules. I want to enforce that specific rule about spamming. Besides, when people do that anyway, it just takes up server stress and it's harder for other users to leave a message, or the owner of the talk page to find his/her message BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
IMO this classifies as common sense, do not spam. If people don't follow it, they should get warned. Tucayo (talk)
Expand Main Page to contain all contentOppose 1-24 What I liked about the main page was I could discuss featured images and vote on polls and all that stuff. The polls left, I was disapointed. However, they brought the polls back, but my other spot the featured images, was gone. It seems that, for stuff to come in, others must go. The way to solve that problem, expand the main page! We want to fit all the stuff everyone loves onto the first page they see when they enter the wiki. Alright, so that idea sucked hard, but would anyone be against adding content that wasn't put on their before? We could have character of the week, user of the week, and new pages on the main page. Plus, we could improve the polls a little bit, I think it changes less often than it used to, as well as not including past polls from the last time they did the polls thing. Proposer:Beecanoe (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThe problem is not space, the problem is the system behind the FI's, it was a total fail. Tucayo (talk)
Well, maybe this should just be for the 'Projects Seeking Contributors' and maybe a 'Quote of the Day'. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
yeah and the polls are useless to since they really dont do anything by take up space mrblob1012 (talk)
Gargantuan lecture...sorry, I'm not accusing you of anything but should I make my future arguments shorter? I don't know if you prefer a more detailed version which will be very long or a short simple overview of my points...I personally like the longer paragraphs because they cover every (or almost every) objection that anyone could make but more people are likely to read something short and sweet...anyways, which do you (in general) like better? Marioguy1 (talk)
Personally, would like a page or two just visible to users. I may not be edited as frequently, but that would matter. It would just be people who can change it. I'm not saying bring back featured images, but we could have things like progress on things like pipe projects or something. Maybe even come up with a better way to show good pictures. Some stuff that we as users need/want to see and doesn't concern others. And if that stuff belongs on the forum, I certainly can't find anything. (You can discuss this bunny trail more on my talk page.) Back to the point. I am fine with the main page as it is. Just suggesting a different approach to add more content. Geniusguy445 (talk)
Main Page DilemmaDELETED BY PROPOSER Lately, we have gotten many proposals dealing with none other than the main page. "Remove FI's.", "Bring back the Polls.", "Fit all content on Main Page." and so on and so forth. Why can't we just settle that and try to please all of them? FI's and the calendar that told of interesting facts of that month was personally one of my favorite MP templates, but now they are deleted. We have Polls and now the 'Shroom template, which is also good, yet I really missed some of them that have faded into obscurity. What I propose is that we feature all those templates we all love and enjoy their presence on the main page! Before you go thinking that I am the fit all content on MP proposal, well read on. We don't need to have all of them on all at once, or else an overload of data would constantly cause a big list of problems. My proposal here is to make a schedule and trade places with the Main Page! To help you understand what I am aiming at, let me describe it for you. Week 1 -
Week 2 - This is just an example of what we could change. Not saying this would be the exact change.
Week 3 - Back to Week 1. It would be a MAJOR change for us all, and I wouldn't doubt that it would be hard, but at least picture of such quality and awesomeness we would have for the main page! If we just timed each template correctly, from my calculations, then it should work out perfectly! I know that you all have your opinions about this, so I think I will wrap up this proposal. Just remember that even though it would be some difficult work getting everything started, we could be able to make an outstanding Main Page to satify all!!! Proposer:Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsNo. Having a differentiating main page is a bad idea. When someone comes to look for FAs, they'll find FIs. When someone looks for the calendar, they will find the polls. The calendar has to be a month-long thing if it is there at all, stuff doesn't just stop because we remove it from the main page. Furthermore, the FI template was removed from the main page because the process was shut down for a reason. Not to clear up the main page; the FI process is not good enough. And quotes will have the same problems. This proposal is just too inconsistent, we need to have some of those things for a month-long period or not at all. Other things will have bad nomination processes because they are matters of opinions. Sorry but this proposal is not a good idea in my opinion. Marioguy1 (talk)
This will just end in a chaotic mess. The inconsistency will reflect badly on our website. Sorry, but no. - Edofenrir (talk)
Well it's obvious this one isn't working so would you consider it deleting? Marioguy1 (talk)
Making Articles for KeysDon't make articles for Keys 0-15 I think we should make articles on different keys in the Mario series. The reason this came to me is because I found an article, Station Key, on a key in Paper Mario: TTYD. Then I thought that if this key article can be made, then we can make a whole bunch of key articles, for example, Pit Key (found in the Pit of 100 Trials) and Dimension Key (found in the Whoa Zone) from Super Paper Mario. I made those redirects to Key for now. There are 27 key articles. Proposer: Mileycyrussoulja (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsShouldn't this be a TPP on Talk:Key?Knife (talk) Another Paper Mario pointless item page creation proposal? Why don't we just make a List of Keys or something? MrConcreteDonkey (talk) I concur, this proposal should be a Talk Page Proposal, as this obviously does not involve the the Wiki itself. Emperor Yoshi (talk)
@Mileycyrussoulja: You oppose your own proposal? Surely this is eligible for deletion. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)
The Science of Video GamesDon't make such user subpages 2-15 I believe that user sub-pages relating to theories and the like should be exempt from the Userspace 'guidelines', as they ought to be put somewhere. If not on sub-pages, then maybe in the talk page or the article itself. See my example on Talk:Ztar. PLEASE LIST WHERE THEY SHOULD GO! Proposer: YourBuddyBill (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWell, you need to give a time for the voting to start and end. Emperor Yoshi (talk) See Mariology, one of our affiliates. It is expressly dedicated to this sort of content. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
Forums tend to glitch up for me, not showing dates of topics or posts, so I usually get in lots of trouble for necroposting. YourBuddyBill (talk) Votes that were made before the voting period started remain invalid even after it starts. If we allowed anything else, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a "voting period". Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) |