|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3||Archive 4|
|Archive 5||Archive 6||Archive 7||Archive 8|
|Archive 9||Archive 10||Archive 11||Archive 12|
I had to agree with everything you said in your profile, I love the GTA series, but I think, honestly, users should have a higher knowledge about the series before thinking about being a staff member, you can see, many users left because they simply love GTA SA and they hate GTA V, if you ask them how many GTA games they have played, they'll only say GTA SA and GTA V (and probaly GTA IV too), I for an example, have played all the GTA games except GTA London and GTA Advance, there are some users like me in the wiki, such as 558050 and WildBrick142, they have played all games, IMO to be a staff member, the users should play at least five GTA games, to be exact: Vice City, San Andreas, IV, Ballad of Gay Tony and GTA V. (talk) 23:05, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't really like how people call themselves "GTA experts" if they have only played 1 or 2 games. Unless they have read the Wiki heaps, knowing everything about SA doesn't meant you know everything about GTA in general. User:LegenDove 14:39, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
I was talking exactly about this with AndreEagle17 a few days ago (we talk in portuguese, so I guess none of you understood), people losing interest in the wikia or GTA. I also believe that is something perfectly normal, checking the profile of some of the ex-members of the staff I noticed how many people were demoted because of inactive, so all happening is not something new for the GTA wikia.
- I don't know if theres any way to avoid promoting people that will lose interest in GTA after a while, I even sugested to AndreEagle17 to raise from 2 to 6 months the amound of time that someone needs to be on the wikia to become a patroller. Thats because, if someone joins the wikia after buying GTA V and he is only playing the game because of the hype and not because he is a true fan of the series, he probably will have already lost interest in the game after 6 months if not less, so we don't run the risk of promoting someone that will leave the wikia after just a couple of months, like the recent case of RainingPain. It's not 100% secure of course, but I guess it could help. --558050 (talk) 23:41, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
Out of interest
- Not really, I don't edit enough. I'd come back as a bureaucrat with the understanding that I'd step down once we had a third person ready to promote because staffing and running a wiki is what I'm good at, but I don't really edit content hardly ever and that means I don't have any business being a patroller or admin. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:20, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
- "I'd come back as a bureaucrat" That's great to hear. I had been reading and trying to gauge whether it would be worth asking you to "step into the breach" temporarily but thought you felt bound by the "no take-backs" agreement you had with the others. I'd say if Dan and Vaultboy Tom agree, you should be in without needing any election. smurfy (coms) 20:29, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
- Per our policy GTA_Wiki:Meatpuppetry, it is against the rules for editors to edit on this wiki soley to support or advance the agenda of another editor. Boomer hasn't made any edits to GTA Wiki since he left in May 2014 that didn't directly involve trying to help Sasquatch101 in some way or other. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:50, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, now I understand, should a user edit on a wiki only to fill another user's agenda, he is violating the policy, I think this is fair, thanks. (talk) 19:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
I have no clue what makes you think that you can take my vote down and say I'm prohibited from voting. Sorry pal, but I've been contributing to this wiki for around 3 years, and I'll be dammed that I won't have a say in this wiki's future. I know you hate it when you don't get your way, but that doesn't mean you can twist the rules in your own favor. Boomer8 (talk) 19:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
I told this already in the RfP page, but I will say to you again. Doesn't all this Yes (with conditions) already show that we are not ready to accept Sasquatch as part of the staff yet? You can't vote Yes for someone and still need to remind him of basic things to do like, be active and polite. If all this people who voted Yes doesn't trust the guy to do this little things, how he can be a fully patroler then? For me, this entire voting should be already finished. Do you honestly trust Sasquatch to handle this position? Do you believe that if another major vandal attack like the one before happens again, he will not do all that clusterfuck again? Because the only people that I believe would answer Yes to both of this questions, are Sasquatch puppets, and I know what you already think about then. DLVIIIL Talk 20:54, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not saying that the guy can never become a patroller ever again. If he behaves like an active and polite regular user here for some time, I'm wiling to vote Yes for him. But the fact that he vanished for so many time, and when he finally appears again, is to apply himself to be an admin, and then apply to be a patroller like if nothing had happened, only bothers me even more. DLVIIIL Talk 20:58, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the Yes WIth Conditions thing is a good idea - if anything I think it's unfair to the person with the job to have a stigma of having it hanging over their head like that. In my opinion either we trust someone enough to promote them, or we don't. Like I said, my big worry is that Sasquatch can't handle his temper when he's pressed enough. He'll be a model editor for a year straight and then flip out unexpectedly. Jeff (talk·stalk) 21:03, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly, this stigma is bad for the person being promoted and the person who voted. Anyway, I just can't picture Sasquatch handling things very well for too long, wherever I think of him, the first think that pops into my mind is this incredibly childish complain that he had against GTA V. I don't know why. It was the first time that I talked with him and I guess it sticked with me. DLVIIIL Talk 21:19, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Apart from the RfP and community noticeboard, the only activity since early November has been to reinstate links to the Myths wiki over the last cuple of days which I would argue serve the Myths wiki more than they served this wiki. The September/November contributions wouild be less than what the demoted (inactive) guys had been doing in the last 4 months. smurfy (coms) 01:55, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
- I've thought this over for a few hours and I think we should leave Myth hunter's vote up. If we're fanatical about meatpuppetry, there's going to be an Incident any time two guys who generally agree on things take the same side on an issue. I'd rather not bring it into consideration unless the editor in question is behaving really disruptively. That's the difference between Boomer/Sasquatch and any other set of editors who are friends. Myth hunter may be a friend and supporter of Sasquatch but he doesn't go around insulting the entire community for not worshipping him. I didn't realize that the only thing Myth hunter was doing was adding links to Myths Wiki though - that does change how I feel about him being here and voting on things a bit. Just not enough that I want to go around telling him he can't vote - telling people they can't vote should be a last-ditch thing to prevent disruption. Jeff (talk·stalk) 04:17, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
- No, I was talking about Sasquatch's activity or lack thereof. He's the one that hasn't been contributing at all in terms of eligibility for promotion. MythHunter has been a little more consistently adding a couple of relevant edits a month, similar to the rate we were declaring the staff inactive, but not rated as completely inactive for a user by any means. Certainly not to the extent that would give rise to accusations of meatpuppetry and he should still be considered an eligible voter. smurfy (coms) 04:28, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
- Trouble with this is that most of the patrollers have only been promoted this month. Messi1983 (talk) 19:15, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jeff, I was just checking your conversation with Dan, well, I think we need another admin but not right now, and I would say that the most qualified patroller is Smurfynz, but he just got promoted this month, I say give him a year or less and maybe he send a promotion request. (talk) 20:44, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Jeff. Long time, no speak. Listen, I apologize for my inactivity and my demotion. It's that I've been busy with school and I haven't had Internet in my home for a few months. And yeah, three edits for January isn't enough. Once I get Internet ("hopefully" by next month), I can retain my moderator position.
- You didn't get demoted from patroller, you just got moved to inactive. The wiki's rule says that we don't demote patrollers for inactivity and admins/bureaucrats who go inactive only get demoted to patroller, but the patrollers don't seem to understand that and keep filing demotion requests. If I'd been a bureaucrat at the time I'd have deleted the demotion and just moved you to inactive. Jeff (talk·stalk) 20:30, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
- What? There was a single "inactive/demote" discussion and it was raised because all 5 had made enough irregular edits to avoid the automatic 3 month inactivity timer so couldn't really just be made inactive without discussion. Most of the patrollers and editors seem to have correctly understood that Tony would just be moved to inactive in accordance with the rule. In fact, 2 of the votes to demote Tony came from the two Bureaucrats. Leo and I had to remind Dan that all inactive staff should have retained Patroller rights unless they resigned. Before you fire "lack of understanding" shots, maybe you should check your aim. smurfy (coms) 00:52, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
I spoke recently to Dan about becoming a Bureaucrat to fill the empty space you are temporarily occupying. I will consider Bureaucrat later in the year because I have bureaucratic rights on another site. For now I'd like to adjust to admin and see how I handle it. Leo68 (talk) 00:18, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
Rule change vote needed
Myths Wiki Links
Hey McJeff. Why are you removing the links from the GTA Myths Wiki. On the Community Noticeboard, we agreed to have it once again as an affiliate of the wiki. I recently saw what happened with Boomer8, if that's the reason why you are removing the links, but I think removal of the wiki as an affiliate should be discussed with Sasquatch101 and MythHunter. () 01:21, January 29, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
- It just wasn't relevant to that particular article. Sorry for forgetting to use an edit summary. Jeff (talk·stalk) 01:35, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
The promotion went as expected and that's fine. The whole situation that happened with Boomer though seems to be a little harsh. From what I read Boomer said no personal insults towards Messi and was just having an argument. I mean debate is healthy and good for anything (i.e. wikis, democracies, ect.) and I saw no indication that Boomer crossed a line and became hostile. I think Boomer just felt that he was being excluded from voting based on your and Messis' view that he is a meatpuppet. I can say that he speaks with a lot of passion and does generally agree with me as we have been editing together for over a couple years. He was very loyal to me during the whole Myths wiki fiasco that went down during the Gunshow2 incident. You know how crazy that was and I very much appreciate your help on that. Me and Boomer have a lot of history, we both love myths and I can say that he is a loyal, trustworthy editor and would be a great person to have here on the GTA Wiki.
Image Policy for personal pages/sandboxes
Hey Jeff, I was watching a discussion right now and it was a case similar to mines (which happened some time ago), the thing is:
My friend Monkeypolice188 added pictures to his personal page and his sandbox and he still received a warning for image policy, but RainingPain17 gave him an advice, which was to talk to you about this, as I had the same problem, I should ask, do we really need to add licenses to our personal pages/sandboxes? Why? (talk) 21:33, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Image policy gets weird sometimes. If it's a picture for personal use, you can always just upload it and ask a b'crat or another knowledgeable editor to add an appropriate license afterwards. I'll take a look at the picture in question now. Jeff (talk·stalk) 22:49, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
Hello McJeff. I was just playing through GTA V again(the PS3 version, yeah I know I'm a hipster or something I just can't afford a PS4 atm, anyway), I got passed Meltdown, I felt like switching to Trevor and he was in his underwear, and I decided to go to his safehouse in Sandy Shores to change, and I found Michael chilling in the seat outside the trailer. I have a photo for proof but that's all I got. I was wondering if this information could go anywhere, I mean it if's worthy of going anywhere. If it doesn't I totally understand. Please reply back when you can. We are Diamond Dogs (talk) 05:02, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
- You weren't picking on him Smurf, you were following the policy. His edits were borderline vandalism and he put a "spoiler" tag on his personal page, so it was right that they were being undone/changed. SJWalker (talk) 00:10, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
GTA London 1961 characters page
Hello there McJeff. I've recently done a lot of work on the GTA London 1961 character page, since it was just a copy of the article for characters in GTA London 1969, which is incorrect as they feature mostly different (minor) characters. I see that you have undone my edits, may I respectfully ask why this has been done? Darth crucifious (talk) 12:40, February 14, 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing edit war over the number of gears of the article. One user says that it has three gears according to the game files. Two others disagree with it due to the lack of gear changing sound in the game itself.
- Don't worry, get someone to lock the page, i have removed all of it anyway (talk) | (stalk) 21:11, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
Dear McJeff, I really like this wiki as I use it a lot to inform myself about the GTA game that I'm about to play. But, can this wikia have comments instead of talk pages? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryvideogamebird (talk • contribs) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.
Hey Jeff. I was just on the GTA Myths Wiki and am shocked at what I saw. remember that user what was rigging votes and causing all those problems, well he is back with multiple accounts and is vandalizing the wiki regularly. He is now uploading new (racist) images that are deleting the ones with the same name. Is there any further protection I can add to the wiki to prevent these attacks? In the mean time I'll just keep a watch out.
- Yes it is a sockpuppet of Gunshow2. I have blocked him for sockpuppetry. Messi1983 (talk) 15:08, February 23, 2015 (UTC)
Found the Source
Hey Jeff, long time no speak. Anyway, I believe I have found what someone sent me to be the source of these racist vandals. Check it out and tell me what you think.