344
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by MinniHowl
<div class="quote">T920g7 wrote:
<div class="quote">MinniHowl wrote:
Slightly support — I'm fine with the current picture, except for the fact that the colors are so <i>not</i> natural :p
<p>I like the one you're suggesting.
</p>
</div>also how do you make the slightly support and neural thing
</div> <p>
</p><p>It's very easy, you only type {{Support|Slightly support}} to get Slightly support vote with the support image and {{Neutral|Neutral}} to get the neutral vote with the neutral image. They are both templates, you could also use the {{Oppose|Oppose}} and {{Oppose|Slightly oppose}}. </p>
<div class="quote">MinniHowl wrote:
Slightly support — I'm fine with the current picture, except for the fact that the colors are so <i>not</i> natural :p
<p>I like the one you're suggesting.
</p>
</div>also how do you make the slightly support and neural thing</div> <p>
</p><p>It's very easy, you only type {{Support|Slightly support}} to get Slightly support vote with the support image and {{Neutral|Neutral}} to get the neutral vote with the neutral image. They are both templates, you could also use the {{Oppose|Oppose}} and {{Oppose|Slightly oppose}}. </p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<div class="quote">Jeminali wrote:
I was just wondering, will the new admin be chosen by current admins, or will there be a vote?</div> <p>
</p><p>The current admins will choose the best possible applicants. </p>
I was just wondering, will the new admin be chosen by current admins, or will there be a vote?</div> <p>
</p><p>The current admins will choose the best possible applicants. </p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>For the ones wondering if they "qualify": Essentially everyone qualifies in this. Say you want the job (maybe why) and I think Cc & Epic will check out the work you do both here and elsewhere. At this point I don't think it matters, whoever want the job can apply and Cc & Epic will filter and make the final decision.
</p><p>I agree Toon, Cc & Epic cannot be replaced.
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that "I think <i>x</i> would make a good admin" isn't exactly enough. It would help if you included <i>why</i> and <i>what</i> makes the user a good candidate.
</p><p>It could be a good idea to check out Questions for Administrators on the nomination board.
</p><p><small>As for the questions about Cc & Epic quitting. As Cc said, they both will resign their positions soon due to personal issues or not having enough time to do the job.</small>
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>^
</p><p>That was what i meant, by "see how it's done with the others" :)
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>You go to the MediaWiki page called "Emoticons" like on this wikia that would be this page. Then you can just edit it and see how it's done with the others :)
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<p>@Toon: I see what you mean, and that might not be such a bad idea, but first and foremost this website is for the USA :p
</p><p>I have no clue about the whole "sister channels" and all that, but in Norway shows from Nick are shown on both Nick's channel and this other Norwegian kids channel we have.
</p><p>But, as Cooldog says, I don't see the need for this particular page. A collection page will be better if we're going to have something like that at all.
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>AGF: I like the first suggestion, but fanpop is not a good source to get it from. Could you figure out who really put out the picture? Since fanpop has pictures from all over creation.
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p> Slightly support — I'm fine with the current picture, except for the fact that the colors are so <i>not</i> natural :p
</p><p>I like the one you're suggesting.
</p>
Slightly support — I'm fine with the current picture, except for the fact that the colors are so <i>not</i> natural :p
</p><p>I like the one you're suggesting.
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p><i>Even though COPPA might disable anon edits anyway, I want to state my point of view.</i>
</p><p>
Neutral — Anons editing really doesn't bother me all that much, except the fact that they are less reliable. Often they don't include sources to information and they rarely responds to wall messages and such.
</p><p>But, as said, there are the few anons that do make good edits, and "freezing" them out doesn't seem quite right as wikia is supposed to be a place for everyone to edit.
</p><p>Then there's the age limit. A lot of the anons are under 13 and therefor cannot make an account without being blocked. Some of these people could be very good editors, but the law prevents them from doing it with a registered account.
</p><p>As of now, I don't think we need to disable anon edits, because we can handle it. It's not overflowing with bad edits. As anons like Cc said; People wanna try out the wiki before making an account. Though, in the long run, I think we should disable anon edits.
</p>
Neutral — Anons editing really doesn't bother me all that much, except the fact that they are less reliable. Often they don't include sources to information and they rarely responds to wall messages and such.
</p><p>But, as said, there are the few anons that do make good edits, and "freezing" them out doesn't seem quite right as wikia is supposed to be a place for everyone to edit.
</p><p>Then there's the age limit. A lot of the anons are under 13 and therefor cannot make an account without being blocked. Some of these people could be very good editors, but the law prevents them from doing it with a registered account.
</p><p>As of now, I don't think we need to disable anon edits, because we can handle it. It's not overflowing with bad edits. As anons like Cc said; People wanna try out the wiki before making an account. Though, in the long run, I think we should disable anon edits.
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>What most other people have said, I agree with the fact of only including information from iCarly and Victorious if it is relevant to Sam & Cat.
</p><p>Like the Bibble thing, it's relevant to mention that it started in Victorious. Where to add it, I don't really know. Maybe we could write something like "Cat is addicted to Bibble as she was in Victorious" on Cat's page. I think, maybe, we could mention it on the Bibble page and the episode page as well.
</p><p>However, I don't think we need to add every thing from iCarly and Victorious, like their personality, likes and dislikes <i>unless</i> they show up in Sam & Cat.
</p><p>Though, I've been speculating if we should add in "experience" the characters has from the shows. Like Sam working at the Pear store...
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>This link should work fine for everyone (I think).
</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF0rGlD8cAA
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>Is this the theme song perhaps? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdXF79fuL4
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<div class="quote">EpicFork wrote:
Yeah, I don't want these "bots" looking at my PMs and stuff. o_o</div> <p>Oh yeah? You do a lot of illigal talking in PM's gurl? >:D haha jk, I agree. </p>
Yeah, I don't want these "bots" looking at my PMs and stuff. o_o</div> <p>Oh yeah? You do a lot of illigal talking in PM's gurl? >:D haha jk, I agree. </p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>
Oppose — In addition to everything's that's been said, if we remove the neutral voting part completely people might just not bother to bring their opinions up at all because they do not wish to lean either way. Therefore a lot of arguable and good points to the nomination might get lost. People can always change their votes like you said :)
</p><p>I've experienced that neutral votes has helped while deciding my own votes if I don't know enough myself or just to "expand my horizons", so to speak.
</p><p>Well, to bring up an example. In Norway we vote for which political parties we want in the system and to "rule" our country. People can vote and they can, not vote. They can also vote "blank" meaning they don't vote for anyone (sort of like neutral). Oppose to not voting at all, meaning they don't care the slightest, blank votes show they have been following, but yet not liked any of the ways the politicians have presented themselves, and they might want to reconsider at the next election. I realize these people can't comment on what they don't like, but it shows interest and they can take it up in debates and discussions. Do you understand where I'm going?
</p><p>I feel like the nominations are a sort of a debate where people argue for or against their cause and some just have points to put out there, but not yet a "side". People can question others nomination with a comment and from there also form a new opinion. "Support - I feel <i>name</i> would make a great chat mod." "Comment - why?" "comment - Idk, I just do." That wouldn't exactly give me a good view of someone's vote.
</p><p>I feel I'm just starting to ramble, so I'll stop. :p
</p>
Oppose — In addition to everything's that's been said, if we remove the neutral voting part completely people might just not bother to bring their opinions up at all because they do not wish to lean either way. Therefore a lot of arguable and good points to the nomination might get lost. People can always change their votes like you said :)
</p><p>I've experienced that neutral votes has helped while deciding my own votes if I don't know enough myself or just to "expand my horizons", so to speak.
</p><p>Well, to bring up an example. In Norway we vote for which political parties we want in the system and to "rule" our country. People can vote and they can, not vote. They can also vote "blank" meaning they don't vote for anyone (sort of like neutral). Oppose to not voting at all, meaning they don't care the slightest, blank votes show they have been following, but yet not liked any of the ways the politicians have presented themselves, and they might want to reconsider at the next election. I realize these people can't comment on what they don't like, but it shows interest and they can take it up in debates and discussions. Do you understand where I'm going?
</p><p>I feel like the nominations are a sort of a debate where people argue for or against their cause and some just have points to put out there, but not yet a "side". People can question others nomination with a comment and from there also form a new opinion. "Support - I feel <i>name</i> would make a great chat mod." "Comment - why?" "comment - Idk, I just do." That wouldn't exactly give me a good view of someone's vote.
</p><p>I feel I'm just starting to ramble, so I'll stop. :p
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)
(Edited by MinniHowl)
<p>If anyone wonders what our source is you can just take a look at all of Jennette, Ariana & Dan's tweets the past hour =P
</p>
(Edited by MinniHowl)