Request for promotionEdit
Do you really think i care about notifications i can look at this page where you can get admins, mods etc.--Wcrolas990 11:50, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
i know lots of things about beta, i can help whit that if you would like to
- I've left him a note about it. Jeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 20:12, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
- There was alot of in-correct info in the article, trust me, I'm an expert about GTA IV era.
- Don't worry about Wcrolas, it's seems that Lithuania is not the safest place in the world, but "Jewish must die"? I will delete the quote. :) -- Ilan xd 03:47, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sending messages to you or Dan only in the Bully wiki because I don't want someone else will read it. It's something that only b'carts, admins or patrollers should know:) By the way, what about GTANiko and Harushi? -- Ilan xd 11:22, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Advice requestEdit
I'm happy to offer my advice. If you find the problem is only with one single page, then you may find temporarily protecting that page cools things down. Blocking someone tends to wind them up, and that often does more harm than good. This user has never edited a talk page or a user talk page, so may not be familiar with wiki etiquette or how to find or respond to talk page comments, so you can't guarantee that he's deliberately ignored your warnings. Protecting the page means the protection reason will show up if he tries to edit it again, leaving no doubt. You could also add a <!-- comment --> into the page - if he deliberately ignores or removes that, you can be 100% sure he's ignoring you. That said, he's only 12 and most of his edits don't really make sense - he's put more effort into his own user page than anything else. I'd give the protection a try for a few days, give him a very clear indisputable final warning, as in: "If you make one more false, incorrect or spam edit, you will be blocked for at least a year." That way you've been seen to do everything possible to help, you've been open and honest, you have proof that he's subverted you've given him a chance, and the block would completely be in the interests of the wiki. Whereas if you block him now, just after a warning (which he's not responded to, might not have seen), for editing pages (with disputed facts) that's a bit tenuous and he'd have a right to be upset. Gboyers talk 06:07, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I know you didn't ask my advice on the case of the large signature, but he's reduced it and removed the word "die" which is what you wanted. Now, it's the same size as Tom's, and it's also the same size as yours or mine, since we use superscript letters which pushes line spacing up by the same amount as his slightly-larger text. Unless you're going to invent a new rule blocking them too, I'd suggest that he's done what needed to be done, and there's no reason to keep him blocked. Gboyers talk 10:38, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
- The anti-Semitism qualifies for a block against the rule "No discrimination or abuse towards members or other people" (which I wrote), and also breaches GTA Wiki:Civility from: "personal attacks", "insulting other users", "disrespectful comments". It's up to you whether you start blocking users for things unrelated to their conduct on the wiki. Do you want to open that can of worms? If so, then you have to treat everyone the same. If someone was racist or abusive on another site or another part of wikia, would you block them here? If someone was racist as a joke, or used the N- word in a friendly way? Would you just do it for jews or races or include things like homophobia, sexism, age discrimination etc etc? Don't forget that you are expected to Assume Good Faith without Wikilawyering. I know what I'd do, but this is not my wiki any more. Gboyers talk 12:47, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
- My main question was whether you'd block for general behaviour on-wiki that isn't disruptive/vandalistic/spamming or directly abusive to another user. Anyway - I'd suggest it was probably
DanielWcrolas who just made the account User:Poopyjews101 and possibly other accounts, to circumvent his block and vent his frustration. That sockpuppetry is another specific rule broken. Gboyers talk 17:36, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I can guess from that username and his conversation about Jews in the past few days that Wcrolas made it, but let's see what the checkuser result says. Dan the Man 1983 18:05, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
- The checkuser came back - negative on both - but it's the same checkuser (Timothy Quievyrn) who bungled the 4th Hale/Mizu101 hacking situation. I'm considering asking Angela if she'll grant me Checkuser rights for this wiki anyway, since I know it's been granted to active users in the past. Jeff (talk|stalk) 22:26, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I requested that a week ago and was refused, because they only grant that to users in wikis that suffer a lot of vandalism from sockpuppetry. Dan the Man 1983 23:54, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I never said we didn't. Their words, not mine. Dan the Man 1983 03:50, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
You only semi-protected the page, which only stops new (non-autoconfirmed) users, why didn't you fully protect it? The edit war continued and now he's blocked. Gboyers talk 17:06, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
Since this is a different wiki, I think we need a disucssion on a few policies as most here are copied from BW. For example the deletionism policy needs to be discussed. Infact most of the policies could do with a revamp and be written in a friendlier way. Dan the Man 1983 04:06, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- We wrote those policies harshly in the first place to prevent wikilawyering. Because we both had to deal with the shit on Wikipedia where one edit would be a complete nuisance and ass, and the admins would be like "yeah he's unpleasant but since you're better editors it's your responsibility to compensate for him". I'm not saying we shouldn't rewrite anything (I rewrote the blocking policy significantly, for example), but in general I prefer to have harshly worded policies that can be under-enforced as opposed to weakly worded policies that can be exploited by wikilawyer types. Anyway if you've got a policy you think we should rewrite we can discuss that policy on its talk page.
- I'll just say right now, I'm sure one of the policies a lot of people are going to want gone is the Competency policy. And I'm dead set against taking it down. We've never used it here on GTA Wiki to date, and on Bully Wiki maybe 4 times total in 2 years. It's like, remember 220.127.116.11? Who despite both of our best efforts to help him couldn't write an edit that didn't need to be immediately reverted? Or GLV, who adamantly refused to discuss anything and that's why we had to block him? I think we need the Competency policy as a fallback for those exceptional circumstances, and the records should show that even if it's harshly worded it has never been abused. Jeff (talk|stalk) 04:29, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- I am not saying have weakly worded policies, I am just sayin make them seem a bit friendlier as harshly written policies make us sound like we have something stuck up our arse. Remember the key to editing a wiki is enjoying it. Anyone reading the policies here will think "how the fuck can we enjoy editing here, when it seems this wiki is ran by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin"
- We agreed to be more lenient with users, so why not make the policies here more friendlier and less authorative. Dan the Man 1983 04:42, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- So basically your reason to keep it is because 99.7% of the wiki are competent? Would not that not be a good figure to actually delete it? Dan the Man 1983 14:20, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- I think along with BW, we are the only wiki that enforces "Competence is required" as an actual rule. It is not even a rule on Wikipedia, but an essay. Dan the Man 1983 04:47, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a "rule" on Wikipedia, but they've installed blocks based on incompetent editing - it just usually takes them five ANI threads, three Requests for Comment and an Arbcom case before they get enough "consensus" for doing it. And I certainly don't want to import the "essay" concept. Jeff (talk|stalk) 05:18, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's a ruling on here I want rid of. Users who read probably feel like they're walking on eggshells editing here. Dan the Man 1983 13:57, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually be helpful to them, you should try it one day. Dan the Man 1983 14:16, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't that figure actually a good reason to delete it? Dan the Man 1983 14:21, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Dan, are you forgetting again? We tried and tried and tried to help 99.7, remember? He ended up blocked because after literally months of coaching he still couldn't make an edit that didn't have to be reverted on sight. I linked his contributions earlier in this discussion. And what figure is actually a good reason to delete it? Jeff (talk|stalk) 14:36, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- No Jeff, I have not forgotten, and not every case is going to be like 99.7. 99.7 was ignorant, and I feel he liked playing dumb just to annoy. But I a big difference between here and BW, for example 99.7 is an IP, IPs do not edit here and as you know most incompetent edits come from IPs. 0 is the figure I am on about, no cases what so ever of us having to use it here, which proves editors are competent and as you know that hardly any editor reads the policies on a wiki. We can do without the ruling, and just help users and fix their errors, rather have them abide by a rule that makes them feel they're walking on eggshells everytime they edit. Dan the Man 1983 16:18, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I know... as I said my main concern is having it say somewhere in the rules that we are allowed to block for competency. By all means editors should feel more welcomed to edit, more like they'll be supported if they don't know wiki etiquette yet, and they won't be punished for honest mistakes. Jeff (talk|stalk) 00
- 35, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Another reason is quite plainly, I am fed up of being a little Hitler haha! Dan the Man 1983 16:21, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
Daniel sugden part 2Edit
Jeff! Daniel sugden started again. -- Ilan xd 15:51, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
Re: September 2011Edit
Thank you for your message.
Thanks for the welcome message my friend.Nikos Pagonidis 18:26, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
I put in 2 entries to Little Jacob's Trivia section:
1: he complains when you drive too fast
2: During Roman's 3 taxi missions, Jacob is the only one that you can use any car (Mallorie/Michelle and Jermaine you have to use Roman's taxi).
Now, Ilan xd has erased these entries. I have contacted him, but no reply yet. I'l like to know why he deleted them and do you think he was right to or not.
I still play GTA IV and I know these are true statements.
Don't worry Jeff, I talked to him and explained him about the trivia :) -- Ilan xd 12:10, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
McJeff, you forgot because in GTA San Andreas beta,Slamvan have different wheels
OK! Thanks Jeff -- Ilan xd 17:26, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I cleaned up several characters pages and put the trivia in the articles, What do you think? -- Ilan xd 17:31, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a look in a few, I've got a bit of cleaning up to do here. Jeff (talk|stalk) 17:31, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
i kinda agree but make it noble murders instead
- Deleted Dan the Man 1983 06:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thankyou for following my newly created page Reece Johnson.
Can you tell me how to recruite gang members when the respect meter is full?
Enjoy your "vacation" Jeff! -- Ilan xd 08:19, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
I realy don't know who is right about this "case".
The kid got enough chances, and I saw that he made many (wrong) edits on the pages of Luis Lopez, Gay Tony, Peter Appel (an actor) and several more edits.
However, Dan is maybe right; Daniel making edits only on the Lester Arnold page, he "believe" (like many other fans) that the guy from the second mission in TLAD is Lester.
Do what you think is the best.
-- Ilan xd 16:09, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't against blocking, I just never agree with the "block indefinitely until user apologises" as it never works.
- Another reason why I never agree with the "block indefinitely until user apologises" way of dealing with a trouble editor, and that is a user can easily apologise, in what appears to be a sincere apology, get unblocked, and then go onto cause more mayhem to the wiki.
- Where as a set blocking after a few times of being told to stop makes them think "these guys have blocked me for 3 months, so I must be doing something wrong, so maybe I should listen to them more often". Dan the Man 1983 16:22, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
I say we let him off with a warning but if he keeps doing this we block him. Tom Reed. Oct. 8 2011
- He doesn't need to be blocked. The only edits he has done in the past day or so is add a script to a mission page, which I left him a message about and it was done in good faith on his part. Which reminds me, there is not a policy stating about copyright on the policy page. Dan the Man 1983 15:44, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
You should read what Wcrolas wrote in his talk page. -- Ilan xd 13:13, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Changed block settings so he cannot use his talk page no more after that disgusting message. Dan the Man 1983 14:19, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Hahahaha! I saw that message! I gave him 4/10. -- Ilan xd 19:27, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
But why did you delete my talk page and then restore it? Dan the Man 1983 20:20, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Revision-deleting spam from the other gta wiki. User:Guy Benson spammed 3 talk pages before I stopped him in the middle of the act and blocked him. Jeff (talk|stalk) 22:12, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Dan the Man 1983 15:46, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jeff, can you do something with User:Gtafan310, he keep removing correct information from pages.
Thanks, -- Ilan xd 05:37, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Because he has been blocked three times previously for removing information and has indicated a lack of interest in listening to staff on the matter  I have blocked him permanently from editing. Jeff (talk|stalk) 06:02, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, and thanks. -- Ilan xd 06:45, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
No. You misunderstood me. I really like this Wiki. But i thought it was a site that ANYONE can edit. But I think I misunderstood it. And yes, I am part of other Wikis, and there they like my edits (not to mention I'm an active YouTube member, with GTA videos...)XXLVenom998 17:23, October 18, 2011 (UTC)XXLVenom998
Hello McJeff, I was wondering with the announcement of Grand Theft Auto V should the main page have a News Section with all the up coming information like trailers and interviews I think there should be one so everyone can discuss it. If you want an example of one check out the Elder Scrolls Wiki homepage. Kacj321|Zomboid Wikia|Elder Scrolls Wikia 12:10, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the welcome! Edit
thank you for giving me such a warm welcome! after the fuss back at the custom hero factory wiki I hope none of the fuss happens here. anyway, thanks and bye!Extrablu106 18:45, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
Page deletion Edit
OK. Thanks for that tip about the deletion template. I never even knew that there was one. And I think I've worked out it only does that random lettering on pages when I try undoing someone's edit to the page. TY again for the tip. Russelnorthrop 07:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
hey i recently uploaded a photo on gta sa cj's wiki wall . but i can't find my photo dere , plz help
Hi Jeff, I left a message on Dan's talk page that concerns you so check it out and leave your thoughts on Dan's talk page, I figured having a three way conversation would be a lot easier if we had it on one talk page :). Tom Talk 16:02, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the deal is with this guy but he did this, I have blocked him indefinitely for now so he can't vandalise the wiki further, you change the block to whatever you feel is suitable. Tom Talk 22:13, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
- You blocked him for the correct amount of time.
- I've really got to make that userbox for my userpage, "[Number] of banned users agree that this administrator is homosexual". Jeff (talk|stalk) 00:36, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Accusations of homosexuality used as an insult is tired, boring, old, done over a million times, but it will never die because some idiots think it is the biggest insult you can give to another male.
- If someone said to me "You're fucking gay" I'd laugh my head off haha! Dan the Man 1983 11:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the Infobox city template, I'm not sure what the issue is but on every page its used on it looks messed up, after everything </nowiki> appears. Tom Talk 19:10, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Alright then. Also do you have any idea whats causing the problem with licensing when I upload images, I select one and upload the image but the licensing doesn't show up, I got it working on the protagonist main image but it wasn't working on the other one. Tom Talk 19:24, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I hope it's good. I much preferred the over the top games of the GTA3 era to the gloomy glum and boring GTA4 games. Jeff (talk|stalk) 22:36, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
I think im going to leave now (not that you care)
Well the image policy is stricter than the BFWIKI's
Zephalian 04:04, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Well if that's how you feel, go ahead. In general GTA Wikia is stricter than Grand Theft Wiki because we have something like twenty times the amount of users that they do. However, they've been keeping strict watch on the GTA5 images uploaded as well. Jeff (talk|stalk) 05:17, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
Uploading Grand Theft Auto Five images Edit
Yep, okay, I'll stop. And sorry for uploading those pictures, I had no idea about the policy. GrandTheftFreak 16:18, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
Left you a question on AIM. Dan the Man 1983 09:11, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure that your explanation is fair. Yes, I came here to offer my opinion on how this wiki should be run and the mistakes the new staff were making; but I'm not some busybody idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about, I've spent a lot more time on this community than you (plus I founded it, too).
- You suggest that your opinion (on having strict policies) is undeniably correct, whilst the opinions of myself, Dan, previous staff and a community consensus are unilaterally wrong/invalid. You say that it's better for you to make strict rules than allow the community to do what they want, and you temporarily allowed the changes to be made to calm down the community with the intention of changing it later without any vote or consensus. Do you really believe you have the right to go around forcing your opinion on the community whilst depriving them of the chance to make the decisions themselves? But now you're ignoring community desire (again) and you've chased back a bureaucrat that will agree with you in these new bureaucrat-only votes. Is that really the right thing to do?
- Yes, Dan made some changes that you disagree with, but you yourself have made many changes that he, I and many others don't agree with - like copying policies wholesale from other sites. Why are you allowed to do whatever you want, then get mad when other people try to help? Gboyers talk 19:30, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Fair point, but it's nothing personal, I just think a number of your decisions (not all) are too authoritarian and not in the best interests of this wiki or its community. I'm entitled to express that view, in the hope that things will change, right? Gboyers talk 20:37, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the policies on here are ones that have not been agreed on since they were copied from Bully Wiki to here by Wikiseditor. Anyways what did I do that was so bad this time that you had to rant about me to Tom? Delete a Soviet Union like policy on which you even agreed does more harm then good. Has your obsession with the policy came back? Dan the Man 1983 01:12, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
- 1) Agreement revoked. 2) You were an administrator at the time WikisEditor brought those policies and you thought they were great right up until Gboyers started complaining about them, at which point you went entirely about-face, 3) I don't respect any of your opinions because you admit to me all the time on AIM that you don't like editing wikis and that you only refuse to step down as a bureaucrat because you don't want to lose the power, and despite all your politically expedient words about helping other editors, I'm the only one who helps other editors, you haven't lifted a finger to help a single editor yet. Jeff (talk|stalk) 03:58, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't an admin at the time those policies were brought here and I did tell you on AIM that all our policies needed a review and discussion. It needs to be done soon before another argument or disagreement happens on policy and blocking. What we have here is 3 B'crats who do not agree with each other on the policies we have. Dan the Man 1983 01:34, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- On AIM we also agreed that the blocking policy as it is is fine. Remember, we did a rewrite the last time this came up.
- The image policy, I'm sorry, is mostly non-negotiable and always will be. Copyright law trumps community consensus, and here needs to be a policy on image names just like regular articles need names. We also said on AIM how I wouldn't have to be anywhere near as fanatical about deleting copyright violations if we had even one more administrator helping with sorting all the new images that come in.
- And one of the reasons image names are important is, for example, we've got 3 or 4 versions of the same image for the jetski in GTAV, and if we had one image of the jetski properly named and licensed we could use it to make all the necessary articles look good and delete further uploads of that jetski image as "superseded/duplicate". Jeff (talk|stalk) 04:53, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Yep our blocking policy is fine. I have actually just added to it, on what a B'crat or Admin should do in the case if they disagree on a block put in place.
- I mentioned on the communityboard, that we need 2 more admins. It's not the image policy itself, it's rather how we deal with a user naming an image wrong. I suggest we rename it ourselves, and then guide the user to the image policy. But continuous uploads against image policy, then yes that is the time for action such as warnings and blocks if needed.
- I don't really think most our policies need a revamp as such, rather a review of them to see if they need changing or not. Dan the Man 1983 09:37, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Hey McJeff, I'm not trying to reignite the war between Grand Theft Wiki and GTA Wikia but there are a few facts that I have to get straight. Why did WikisEditor plagarise off Grand Theft Wiki and why didn't anyone try to stop him or warn him when he did so?--MrLVD 10:41, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that people did try to stop him, in fact they did stop him, Wikia removed his admin rights for doing it. Tom Talk 11:21, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- He is also globally blocked on Wikia. Dan the Man 1983 11:50, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Vice Squad Edit
Hey McJeff, I noticed that WikisEditor plagarised a large amount of text from Grand Theft Wiki's Vice Squad article and put them into this wiki's Vice Squad Article. Can you please do me and Grand Theft Wiki a huge favour and remove all of the plagarised text that he inserted.--MrLVD 02:43, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
4th Hale Edit
Hey McJeff, out of curiosity, how was 4th Hale being a nuicence on this wiki? I checked his edit history and all of his edits seemed fine.--MrLVD 12:23, November 24, 2011 (UTC)