(Feb. 19, 2013 10:35 PM)~Mana~ Wrote: (Feb. 19, 2013 9:34 AM)th!nk Wrote: Do you mean beyblade wikia, or beywiki? Beywiki says nothing of the source, and the former is unreliable due to the fact edits can be made by anyone no matter how misinformed they may be.
Yeah, totally ¬.¬
I'll remind you that anyone can post on the WBO, and anyone can actually edit Beywiki as a matter of fact, so therefore both of the sites are unreliable under your logic.
Yes, this is a rant. The members of the WBO still haven't got the message after what...a year of me replying to these messages? I even recall Kai-V saying at one point that it should stop -.-
Then why are errors like this on your wiki and not on ours? I'm sorry, but do remember I try to be as nice to you guys as possible about this, but there is a key difference, that even you have admitted: We police edits to our wiki much harder, and for any edit to stay on there, it must be approved, the volume of unapproved edits is low enough that one person patrolling recent changes is generally enough for us, especially because the penalty for making unauthorised edits is generally quite severe. You know that, I know that, so stop being pedantic.
I'd like to see our sites get along but that requires both sides to admit their faults instead of complaining any time someone mentions them - our approval process and updates can be sluggish, but you guys have people who believe in bitbeasts or whatever the MFB equivalent is (and yes, I've seen edits like that on your site that have been up for ages, but as Ineeded an account to do anything about it, I didn't bother) editing your wiki without a system in place to find and correct those edits, at least, not a functional one, and no community providing sufficient testing.
As for the WBO, yes, anyone can say anything and fake tests and so on. And if you want an idea of how well that goes, search the user 'MyTestsAreLies', mostly his activity when he was called Mu.