Forum:The Social Issue

Hello I am here asking why this wiki is so against this being a social site. I mean can`t you do both edit and talk to people. To begin I don`t understand why we can`t have social groups, and why theres a limit to how many times we edit our userpage, I guess I`m just thinking who cares if people do these things? Thanks. 03:31, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

The point of a wiki is to build an encyclopedia of information related to the topic. It is not a forum or a social networking site to talk about whatever you want. If you want to be social, try facebook or the bleach forums. If you want to share your knowledge by adding to and improving articles, then stay here. You can edit you userpage all you want but it should not be your primary contribution. I edit my user page usually once every thousand to two thousand edits. I have on there what I need to have. This site is not a social networking site and should not be used as such.--

As Godisme said, this is not a social networking site and it should be used as such!! If you have such a problem with our policies then it's not the place for you!! People here with actively contribute to the site because they are dedicated to building a site that fans of bleach can obtain information!! If you want to help out, great but editing your page so may times will not do you any favours and is against our rules!! And people doo care, you're clogging the recent ghanges with meaningless edits and uploading useless pictures when we want to check over proper edits, makes the site look unprofessional and messy!! SunXia  (Chat)  12:56, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with the policies, you have to make a substantial contribution to the Wiki in general, as this is not a blogging site. Facebook is there for those that want to blog, and I remember linking to you the Bleach Wiki:Associate Groups page on your talk page, but you explicitly stated that you did not want to. Again, we cannot force you to edit here, but in order to do so, you have to contribute, which cannot be stressed enough.JW Talk  13:06, June 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Dead issue now, the user has moved on to the fan fiction wiki--
 * It's a circle jerk cite, pure & simple. The site WANTS to be the "correct" source for Bleach information, effectively shaping the fanbase's opinion. So you get a few members lording over how smart they are, & if you don't conform to that narrow viewpoint, expect to be handwaved with "you're just a troublemaker," "go cry about it," or "take it somewhere else if you don't like it." Because nothing says, "We have a dedication to building a site" like banning all dissenters, even after it turns out they were correct, a la Rangiku's status.Neo Bahamut (talk) 01:40, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's far from correct. This site is stricter than most sites because we care about the quality of our articles. Everyone has different opinions and you are free to express them as long as you do so within the limit of our policies (i.e. no personal attacks, harrasment, editing closed discussions, etc.) And as far as Rangiku's status goes that is a moot point. We are an encyclopedia and we strive to have correct information. Rangiku was confirmed by Gin to be deceased (and while every Bleach fan had a hunch Kubo wouldn't kill her off) the fact still remained that she was confirmed by another character to be dead so it had to go on the articles. Our site isn't run by gut feelings or hunches we are ran by facts and what we are presented with in the manga. Also, if our site is awful to you then by all means go elsewhere, no one is required to edit here.


 * That is beyond ridiculous. You (royal "you") put INCORRECT information up. Yet you never own up to that mistake. Because, as always, YOUR logic has to be right, YOUR information best, the way to determine the canon is from policies that YOU write. Anyone else is presented as some lunatic fringe group who's having a nervous breakdown on the page. This is blatant slander, I saw their arguments, all they did was point out to you quite logically that "he said it" isn't a true confirmation. They argued a moderate position, using "undetermined" to avoid taking any one side. You somehow managed to read that as "I'm sad that Rangiku is dead, so say she's still alive." You then decided that Gin was telling the truth as well as a murderer, which was obviously a character judgment, not a fact. And this is coming from a guy who was sure she was dead at the time, but I have the testicular fortitude to admit that Kubo had me fooled. No, see, the reason this is not a moot point is because you never LEARNED from it. Your response to having your basic logic challenged is still "Go somewhere else, you don't have to edit here." God forbid you actually change your views, or at least admit that someone else MIGHT have a point. And I don't mean that condescending "Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but what I said is clearly FACT" thing you always do. I'll be the first to admit that Bleach fans come up with some incredibly retarded theories, but you don't seem to make an effort to distinguish a legitimate counterpoint from "Ulquiorra is still alive somehow."Neo Bahamut (talk) 02:12, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, this was during the time before it was revealed she was alive. The users who wanted us to change it had no way of referencing/proving that Ichimaru was lying about Rangiku being dead at the time, before the chapter proving he was lying was even out. They only did it on a hunch. Information we list is all in accordance to what can be proven in the manga and anime, not on some gut feelings/hunches people have. As for our alleged "go somewhere else" response. Usually that is reserved for people who have a clear problem with how the policies are ran around here, and that they do not intend to follow them. In which case, yes, we are not forcing anyone to stay here, but we have no intention on changing our policies just because certain users have a strong problem with them. Our policies are in place to prevent speculation and junk from appearing on articles, as well as preventing edit wars, spoiler information from leaking, personal attacks, spam advertising, made-up/fan material becoming articles, fan art/fan videos being posted in articles, etc. Policies are in place to stop information and content in this Wiki into turning into a giant mess. If you do not like it, that is fine; we are not forcing you to stay here. But we are not changing our policies in such ways just because you have a strong problem with them. Arrancar109 (Talk)  02:24, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't need anyone to tell you that if you're putting up false information & having to backtrack later, you're not a very good encyclopedia.Neo Bahamut (talk) 02:48, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude... Seriously. Bleach is an ongoing series; of course they have to backtrack if information that isn't clarified/falsified in one chapter is expanded upon in detail in the next. New chapters are being printed every week, databooks every few months or so... They're not psychic, and it's not their fault if overzealous fans refuse to wait one week (or a few chapters, however long it takes) to see if the story develops further on a point that upsets the fandom. They can only go on what they're given; it's not their fault if characters canonically lie and/or get their facts wrong. Information placed here is only "false" if Kubo (more often than not purposefully) gives the readers the wrong impression (and, as soon as it's offically shown to be wrong, it's corrected). If you have a problem with that, take it up with Kubo. .Seshat. (talk) 03:34, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * REALLY? You're actually blaming TITE KUBO for the things the site gets wrong?! No, stop blaming everyone else. You have, countless times, gotten advice on how to better write the articles so that they don't take a biased stance. It is not a necessary evil, it's a flawed system that you stubbornly refuse to fix.Neo Bahamut (talk) 03:53, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not "blaming" Kubo for anything. I'm saying that if Kubo writes a character saying one thing in one chapter, and then writes another character saying something that contradicts that in the next, and that that contradiction is proven to be right, then it isn't the admins' fault. Again, they can only go on what they're given by a week to week basis. There isn't anything to "blame" Kubo for. .Seshat. (talk) 04:02, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's 2 big problems: One, they never actually ADMIT to making a mistake, they just talk around the point with things like "the information changed." Because of this, two, they don't bother to adopt perfectly reasonable improvements to their policies, such as saying that a character is claimed dead, rather than that they ARE dead whenever the only evidence is so-&-so's word. You may not be able to completely eradicate the error, but there's no excuse for not even trying. The thing I don't think you understand is that the controversy isn't about them getting something wrong, it's the things they did in response to being questioned. Potterwatcher could probably tell you more.Neo Bahamut (talk) 04:24, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we do admit to making mistakes, but we don't speculate based on hunches and thoughts that can't be proven before something new comes out. Like I said in the above post, our policies are in place to stop speculation, not add them in accordance to what people want to be true when referenced material contradicts that. Like .Seshat. said, if something is proven wrong later, then we change it accordingly. We may be proven wrong by written material, but other than that, we're not changing information based on hunches. A character's word has more reliability than an overzealous or impatient fan saying things based on their thoughts and opinions, instead of what's actually written in the story or on a databook. Arrancar109 (Talk)  04:55, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * The funny thing is where they're not actually doing that, but you accuse them of it anyway, presumably because you don't even bother to read what they're saying.Neo Bahamut (talk) 05:09, August 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are, and yes we do. In the Rangiku case, before the chapter confirmed that he was lying, they said Ichimaru was lying to Aizen about Rangiku's death. Tell me, what exactly did they have to go on that, if there was no evidence to contradict that? We saw her lying motionlessly in a shocked state with her eyes wide-open, and Aizen even confirmed that her Reiatsu was gone, which usually does dictate that a character with spiritual power has died. They had nothing to go on but a hunch, and because he had known her since childhood, that they doubted he would even do anything to Rangiku, but there was nothing to contradict that he was lying until a chapter came out with the story explaining that Ichimaru only knocking Rangiku out with a Kido spell. That was the only thing that got us to change it because it was proven in a later chapter. We have only gone by what can be referenced because it is far more reliable than hunches. If we did everything based on guessing instead of referencing, then the Wiki would not only be a huge mess, but it would constantly be suffering under edit wars with fans with varying opinions. Arrancar109 (Talk)  05:31, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a better question: If a similar scene happened in a new chapter, what would the "official decision" be?Neo Bahamut (talk) 06:13, August 31, 2011 (UTC)