Unfortunately, Wikia took it upon themselves to ban GTW's staff from this site and all of Wikia, and keep this site open as a copy of Grand Theft Wiki.
Even though I founded Grand Theft Wiki in 2006, and I had the backing of the community to move, Wikia are pretending it never happened so that they can continue to earn money on the adverts that this community hates so much. They have thrown away their dignity, and lost the respect of the community.
Please join us at our new location, and join in the celebration of being free from Wikia's money-driven clutches.
First prove it that my english sucks. Second i'm not threatening if it was i would say if you won't give it i will rape your whole family you fucking prick :).--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrolas990 (talk • contribs) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.
The thing is i'm sick from school i can say some fucking shit i can't remember what is it called gibberish.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrolas990 (talk • contribs) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.
I swear alot because in lithuania 3 year old knows how to swear. It's just sad :( got a lithuanian gene even if my past relatives are spanish blood.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrolas990 (talk • contribs) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.
Thanks for the info about the wikis. By the way, why you was blocked for six months? -- Ilan xd 17:45, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that. You still have your admin rights? -- Ilan xd 18:05, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
Since you think I'm too quick to block I think I'll ask your advice. I've got an editor who's inserting factually incorrect information into an article, refuses to discuss his edits on talk pages, and has continued inserting the false information after being warned. He's User:Daniel sugden (talk|contribs). I warned him nicely once, and then sternly once. How would you proceed in regards to warnings/blocks? Jeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 02:38, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
Gerard, just out of interest, what do you think of the Competence is Required as a ruling on here? I think it is not needed here and Jeff thinks it should stay, so just looking for a third opinion. Dan the Man 1983 17:24, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
- This is the difference between my wiki and this one. On GTW, the focus of staff is on helping users become good editors, not restricting editing to an elitist selection of staff (like WikiGTA and GTAModding) or forcing inexperienced users out (like here). I always said CIR was ridiculous, especially since it's just an opinionated Wikipedia essay. Yes, I can understand saying that people who are repeatedly destructive should be eventually removed, even if it's all accidental. But saying you need to be experienced and competent to edit here is overstepping the line by a mile. This is not my wiki any more, so it's your choice, but given the rules and attitudes, I would not like to be a new user here. Gboyers talk 18:09, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not wed to the idea that it has to stay exactly as it is. What I want is for an actual rule to say something along the lines of "If, even after multiple users have done their best to help you, you still aren't able to contribute constructively to the wiki, you may be blocked from editing as a last resort" After having looked at the few competence blocks I installed on Bully Wiki, I furthermore came to the conclusion that in four years of wiki-editing, there has been only one user who actually needed to be blocked specifically for competence. That was the 99.7.x.x editor I've mentioned a few times before. The reason I want a rule stating that competence blocks are allowed, however, is to prevent a Wikipedia-esque months-long appeals process while you try to prove that the incompetent editor is actually beyond help.
- If you've got the stomach to sift through Wikipedia drama, you can look at the cases of Gavin.collins and Pumpie for two cases of incompetent editors who I think should have been blocked years before they finally were and who, especially in the case of the former, drove good editors away while the bureaucratic engine ran in low gear. Jeff (talk|stalk) 18:49, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
- So because Wikipedia (25 million pages) allowed a couple of incompetent editors to cause trouble, you think the GTA Wikia (52,000 pages) should have a whole policy to scare away everyone who isn't an expert at using wikis? If you have this as a policy, and you follow it, then you will end up banning users just because they're new. I doubt that's your aim, but it will be the result of the prescriptive way policy and staffing works on this site. Which is the wrong way. Gboyers talk 19:33, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. You're the one repeatedly misinterpreting me. It was User:WikisEditor who chose that ridiculous policy, not either of you. As far as I know, you've not blocked anyone for breaching it, so how on Earth could I be accusing you of mis-applying it?? The thing I personally disagree with is how policy on this site is prescriptive and limiting, whilst the wiki SEEMS to be trying to be community-focused. I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi or of mis-applying policy, not at all. I'm accusing the policy of being inadequate. With the CIR policy, you make all your visitors scared of contributing, having to look over their shoulder every 5 minutes to check if what they're doing is against the 1000 individual rules on the site. I run my wiki completely differently - with fewer rules, and instead having principles, objectives and priorities which everyone is working towards. Anyone who does anything against that can expect to be warned or removed. It works much better for us, but only because all my staff 100% understand this, and I trust them all to stick to doing things which improve the wiki. Of course we have some absolute rules, and quite a few guidelines (e.g. article naming) that show the ways of doing things that we've chosen.
- That's what works for us, because of the type of site my staff and I run. I am not suggesting that you should copy my policies, not at all. I'm suggesting that you should decide HOW you want to run this site, and select/write whatever policies you need to enforce that. At the moment, this site seems to be made of randomly-selected policies - some inherited from GTW (that I wrote), some that you guys have used before (e.g. from bully), and some copied from elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia). In my opinion, you need to re-think it all from scratch and make the wiki how you (and your users?) want. This is what I keep trying to explain - it's not directed at any individual.
- As a starting point, I suggest you answer these questions:
- What do you want this wiki to become? What is your end-goal?
- How do you want to make this wiki different to GTW and others?
- How much freedom do you want to give your users? In what areas?
- How much freedom do you want to give your staff? In what areas?
- What should the focus of staff be? Expertise, enforcement, guidance, training?
- How should the final decision be made? User vote, staff vote, or bureaucrat decision?
- What do you expect from very new users?
- What do you expect from very experienced contributors?
- What specific actions do you absolutely need to ban from the site completely?
- As a starting point, I suggest you answer these questions:
- Your answers to those questions should form your policy. When answered, write a policy statement like these:
- If you want a strong, rigid, structured wiki, focused on accuracy, you might give users little freedom. This sort of wiki might even be "selected users only" or require edits to be approved by staff. You might have several ranks of staff/users, each saying what they're allowed to do (e.g. editor, senior editor, reviewer, rollbacker). Users in the community should have some input, but it will always be staff making the decisions. There's no room for error, and users who don't adhere to the structure should be removed without delay. Staff are able to do whatever they need to do to make the wiki excellent.
- If you want a community-led wiki, then democracy would be the centre of decision-making. You'll have discussions and votes on everything, with the role of staff being to oversee the debates and uphold the outcomes. Policy will be focused on discuss first, act afterwards. Users who go against established decisions or are seen to subvert the democracy will be dealt with severely, for breaching the community's trust.
- If you want a free and open wiki, focused on being fun rather than correct, you'll give users complete freedom. You'll have people cleaning up messes, and will ofc take action against vandals, but you don't restrict users from getting stuck-in. Your editing policies won't be very strict, instead you'll have guidelines to steer people in the right direction. Staff will be responsible for training users and cleaning messes, rather than being in-charge. Decisions should be made by the community, but could be made by staff IF they are able to please everyone.
- Your answers to those questions should form your policy. When answered, write a policy statement like these:
- At the moment, you seem to be a mixture of these, and it makes no sense. You have votes and some firm policies, but staff are able to overrule them. You encourage participation, but scare users off with high expectations. Try answering my questions and producing a policy statement, then we'll see what policies you need to make it work.
- As for indenting my posts, you're seriously shouting at the founder of this wiki (longest-serving user, highest active edit count, and wrote most of the policy here) for something ridiculous like that? The way I always do it is if there's a discussion between two people, one person indents and the other doesn't. (Same with 3, but the third person always indents 3 times) That way it's very easy to see which replies belong to the same user. Stack-indenting (every reply indents another) is meant for complex non-linear tree-style conversations, where you need to show who is replying to which comment. But here it's all in chronological order - every new post goes on the bottom - so stack-indenting is pointless. It's just silly forcing there to be 5+ indents in a conversation between 2/3 people - it makes it harder to see whose reply is whose, and wastes hundreds of pixels in width. But hey, whatever you want. I've done nothing but try to help, but if my advice isn't good enough for the almighty bureaucrats, I'll leave you to it. Gboyers talk 05:48, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it was WikiEditor who added that policy here, cause most of the policies he added come from BW. I don't think we can justify the Competence is Required policy on here, when no IP's(most incompetent of users) edit here and most, if not all users are competent already. If they're not, then a little help would not go a miss, instead of rousing at them for doing wrong.
My problem with the ruling, it makes people who read it feel like they're editing on thin ice. People when editing should feel like they're doing something good and having fun and not feel like they're going to be blocked any minute all because competence is a strict must on here. Competence requirement is an unwritten must on all wiki, and it does not need to be written in a policy, which makes it seem like a scare tatic.
Another way I see it is that people when editing are going to make mistakes, as it is human nature to make mistakes. It is very easy to grill them for making mistakes, but it is much easier and more rewarding to the wiki if you correct their mistakes and help them.
What I want from this wiki is a community where everyone can edit and have fun editing under a fair policy system, where major decisions are done by voting where everyone, staff or not has their say. We all have one thing in common, we all love GTA. Dan the Man 1983 16:35, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan, sounds good to me. Jeff, do you agree with those sentiments? Gboyers talk 16:59, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- This should be adequate. I do have a concern about editors who wikilawyer about whether they broke the rules or not and whether we have the right to block them, but I don't think that warrants retaining an unpopular and more-harm-than-good policy like Competency Is Required. Jeff (talk|stalk) 22:51, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, it does more harm then good. If it did any good then it would be a policy and not an essay on Wikipedia. Dan the Man 1983 23:14, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about the way that looked, I didn't mean it the way it looked, when I read it back I realised how offensive it looked. While I personally don't agree with homosexuality I am not really against it and I was just replying to the comment above, I meant that it would be unpopular if the game had a gay protagonist. Same with the female protagonist, I think by doing that they'd lose a lot of potential sales. Tom Talk 21:29, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate you apologising, your comments were completely inappropriate. Yes, I know many people don't agree with homosexuality, but that's mostly due to a lack of understanding of the real situation, or simply religious indoctrination. People are different in many different ways, whether from race, size, gender or whether they prefer men/women; but that is such as minor part of someone's personality. I don't know what they taught you at Heckmondwike, but just because someone is gay does not make them camp, promiscuous, AIDS-riddled sluts, which is what a lot of people assume. In fact, the gay people I know are nicer, more romantic and more committed than half the straight people I know, and on the whole more masculine too. I know and have worked with a number of gay people in the police and army, who are a hell of a lot more manly than the people you probably look up to, like the perfume-selling long-haired David Beckham.
- Yes, I can understand straight males being weirded out by a female/gay character dating males, but I don't think dating should be included in a GTA game anyway. But why would controlling a female or gay character make any difference to *anything* else in the game? Seriously? Would the woman not be able to drive properly, or have to have a baby with her at all times? Or would the gay have to stop every 5 minutes to re-touch his makeup and put on his drag outfit? It's closed-minded attitudes like that which is what holds back so many things.
- I actually think a female character would open up many other avenues, like how she could manipulate men to get them to do what she wanted. Likewise, a gay character would find it tougher to work his way up to the top (which 'yet another white male' would find easier). Remember how hard it was for Niko to find work and be accepted in IV? Imagine it being a thousand times harder, because of people like you underestimating and prejudging him, so he has to prove himself (no that doesn't mean sleep around). I think that would be a great new direction, actually. Whilst some narrow-minded religious nuts might object, I think the vast majority of gamers just want to play GTA. Gboyers talk 21:50, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Heckmondwike? Where did you get that from?
- I just don't feel comfortable around gay people, I'm sorry but I don't hate them I just can't understand it. I would not like playing as a gay man at all, I would just find it awkward and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the game. As for a female protagonist, I just don't see it working, I tried playing as a woman on Saints Row and it just wasn't right, I know not everyone feels this way but thats just me.
- Just for reference, I don't look up to David Beckham in any way, I don't really like football and I don't like anything else he's done. I prefer people like Manny Pacquiao, if you do a bit of research on him I'm sure you'll find out why. Tom Talk 22:00, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
- When I said "a female protagonist wouldn't be as bad as a gay protagonist" I was refering to how it would affect fans and sales, I realise I should have expanded upon what I said so it wouldn't of just seemed like a homophobic comment. Tom Talk 17:10, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
Can you kindly please talk to them, I uploaded an idea on the Grand Theft Auto V wishlist part 11 (or whatever it's called) page, saying they should have a female protagonist, gave her a little background story, some weapons I'd like to see, etc and one of the members of staff has reverted it and protected it, it's the second time since the whole dispute about a female protagonist since when I made that comment, you need to sort them out I'm sorry, the wishlist is supposed to be no right or wrong answers, I ain't offended anyone, I could understand if I wrote "GTA V's gonna be a waste of money, I'd rather buy The Sims 3 at least that's more fun than GTA rubbish." Why is everyone so against it? The staff need to be told about not reverting anyone's ideas.White&Gold 10:33, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- It Was on this one, I've had to re-write my ideas (bit vexed about but added some new ideas) on my blog on my pageWhite&Gold 11:13, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Second time I've written the blog and it won't show up,
A female protagonist, personally think it's something different, if GTA V's meant to be the last GTA in its series (like I've heard from many people and seen on different websites and I can't remember which ones.) But likewise if there was a female protagonist, I'm sure it would be one of the most popular GTA games, I'm not saying make everything all girlie, maybe just the protagonist (who'd care about what she looks like) and if people say a female protagonist would be weak, I don't think so, look at Lil' Kim; she calls herself "The Queen Bee" and has an album called "La Bella Mafia" and she's a strong woman, and Beyoncé released a song earlier this year that has the lines "Girls, who runs this,
run this/mother?" (depends on which music channel you've seen it on) and "Who run the world? (Girls)" and she's a female implying female empowerment and that she ain't to be messed with, also I saw on X-Factor one of the judges has a tattoo on her arm saying "The Female Boss", maybe none of this has anything to do with GTA V, but it shows that female's aren't all meek and got the body strength of a kitten, if anything is to be shown by is GTA III as it had the token female antagonist (and one of the 'best' ones to be honest) ever did that make GTA III's sales flop? I doubt that, it's released a 10th anniversary edition, maybe if Rockstar sees this, her story line could be this, her name is Jentina Brown, as a kid she was a good daughter, got good grades at school, had dreams of being a doctor, a perfect housewife, but once she reached the age of 15, that's when it all changed, she got picked on at school, for being a smart girl and a pretty girl by some jealous girls, that's when she started to rebel, got in fights at school, enjoyed a bit of cockatoo (hint, hint), (I'm not being sexist or a bastard, I respect all aspects of the female body, grew up with an older sister who was proper and not a slag) did drugs, skipped school, had a boyfriend who was a gangster, been in and out of jail during his teen years (I'm not acting all holier than thou but it's her background story and one of my best friends was a bit like that, ain't seen her in a few years) that's what dragged her into the gangster world, the dreams of being a doctor became who could get the most $100 notes in her thong, be it on a pole/in the back of a man's Banshee, then her boyfriend, (the one from the trailer, he's a lot older than Jentina, he wears a lot of suits talks in a fancy accent, dreams of having a family, he's no one's fool, his front is drug pushing/pimping/money laundering) then one day he came home drunk and became abusive threatened he'd cut her throat as she asked him how much had he had to drink? She reaches out for a candlestick (a new weapon in the GTA series) whacks him with it, one of her neighbours heard the argument and the thud and calls 911, the police arrest Jentina, she gets a minimum of three years for self-defence (or whatever is the real time for doing it), she worries about when he gets released he'd come and finish her off (this could be the opening cutscene all this ) she goes back home, packs up a suitcase with clothes (or lack of clothes), money (enough for a flight on USAir to where ever GTA V's set in, she rings an old client of hers (he's about 38 and she's 29, he made a friendship with Jentina, he thought she was to good to be a stripper/prostitute and use to give her weighty envelopes with tips and always would tell her to buy something nice for herself) once she gets there she builds up her own empire (like how most sorry all of GTA games if you think of it), be it sleeping around with men/manipulating them into doing her stuff (something she's very good at) she'd end up being a drug lady, owned the biggest mansion hideout with a view of the ocean, a swimming pool, her own walk-in wardrobe, you name it. However near the end of the game, her boyfriend finds one of her phone bills and he phones the phone company to say it's been stolen can they tell him where it was last used, in where she's hiding, he gets the next plane to find her, goes to her first safehouse where her roommate lives, they get into an argument, her roommate he threatens him and gets killed, the boyfriend had a machete and cut his arm off with it and then beats him to death, Jentina then goes there for the next mission and sees that on the wall in blood is a message "I know where you are, meet me by the pier, I just wanna talk, nothing else, she goes there and sees him, they talk for a bit, but she took a gun with her, he comes after her, tries to strangle her, a gunshot is heard, the camera zooms into the water where her boyfriend’s body is, she killed him, the last thing she says to him is "You stupid son of a bitch" she walks away, the camera shows her walking and her hailing a cab, the credits roll, the cab goes straight to her mansion she walks up the stairs to her bed, it shows her taking off a black dress, goes into a shower, closes the shower door, end of the credits, also you'd be able to customiseher hair from length to colour, she starts off as blonde with brown streaks, what she wears, from underwear to clothes even shoes, jewellery, make-up, you'll be able to go out clubbing, getting drunk, which would be better than GTA IV's way, you'd talk more like, "Did I leave my thong in there?" "Hey where am I?" "Oh shit I'm gonna puke," you'd be able to text/e-mail/shop online for food, drugs, clothes, booze, you name it, people yourself like "you got any missions for me?" "Do you wanna go clubbing?" even send pictures of Jentina to other male characters in the game. I'm not trying to say make it all girly, I'm just saying a female protagonist is what I'd like to see, I wish Rockstar would see these ideas. I would also love as a wider radio station variety like a UK hip-hop and US hip-hop station so players who haven't heard of them before can compare them, I would love a R&B station to playMariah Carey's song "Up Out My Face" with Nicki Minaj, I'd love a UK garage radio station a dancehall and reggae station and also a drum & bass station like MSX and a dubstep station with Katy B's song "Lights On" also I'd love more faster car and more realistic cars and missions that were wider range. I would want GTA V, knock GTA III off of my top 10 games.
What you think?White&Gold 11:37, November 12, 2011 (UTC)