User talk:ReiV

From Grand Theft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Spamming links

Hi, and welcome to Grand Theft Wiki. However, it is clear that you joined this wiki just to promote your own site. And you even made fake edits just to be considered not a new user so you could add links - even when the page clearly states "Please do NOT add your own sites here". I have removed your links - please consider this a warning and contribute positively to our site. :) gboyers talk 11:46, 8 April 2015 (BST)

Very interesting. So everyone is supposed to bow before your completely subjective assumptions: "it is clear that..." How is that clear? Furthermore, my own website? Seriously? Do you have anything to back up your point of view or is it just a childish nonsense? ReiV (talk|edits) 12:03, 8 April 2015 (BST)
Okay, it's clear you joined to promote another site (whether it's yours or not). The evidence is in the Abuse Filter logs which show you made several attempts to add the links, you were shown the warning that explains new users can't add links, and then you made pointless edits so that you could add the link. Better? Either way, I have made it clear that we don't allow links to other sites on the Grand Theft Auto IV page, and our Rules prevent advertising, but you have reverted my edit. I asked you nicely, but now I must be firm. I'm very happy for you to edit this wiki, but please do not add links to other sites. gboyers talk 12:07, 8 April 2015 (BST)
So here we go again. "It's clear" - it is very subjective, but as a person with ability to suspend other users you must be objective, usually it is supposed to be a main responsibility of a moderator. If you are not objective, then you shouldn't have rights to judge other people in the first place. As for those Abuse Filter logs - I don't see how it is an evidence or can prove anything. Indeed, I did try to add a link to that site as it would contribute to the article and when I was denied, I decided I should contribute to wiki first and that would be even better, as I do care about this website's community. Here I am being subjective, but I am not a mod myself so it is okay to be so as a regular user, but I honestly believe those changes I made were better for those articles, as they made sentences sound more "fluid". And please explain, how is it forbidden to add external links, as that exact page already has at least two external links? Well, even that subsection is called "external links", and I guess "external" here stands for a reason. ReiV (talk|edits) 12:21, 8 April 2015 (BST)

Yes, I have to make an objective interpretation of your actions based on the evidence. Evidence such as:

  • You making these edits [1] [2] [3] which are not significant contributions, making no meaningful or positive change to the page, and I believe their only purpose was to bypass the new-users-cant-add-links restriction that we have
  • You ignoring my request not to add links, and re-adding your link
  • Your username actively posting this same link in many other places on the Internet (some inappropriately) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

The external links in major pages are only for official sites plus Wikipedia - we do not want to have a link for every single fan-site that exists, and it would not be fair to allow one but not others.

You will notice that I have not blocked you, I just removed the links and asked you not to add them again, whilst inviting you to continue editing here. I think that is fair. gboyers talk 12:45, 8 April 2015 (BST)

Those edits are indeed not significant objectively-talking, but in my opinion they are nice. I believe so. And they don't contradict the rules. I didn't ignore your request, as you haven't made one prior to my action. As for username, well, they were made after I made that edit, so my theory would be is that someone is trying to blackmail me, probably that was your evil masterplan to post that link all over Internet to portray me as a bad person, but I have no evidence for that (just like you don't have evidence for me and that guy posting those link to be the same person). Or it can be just a pure concidence. Whatever it is, something which happens on a completely separate website is a different matter and has nothing to do with this Wikipedia (i.e. other sites are not under the jurisdiction of your website and vice-versa). I've re-read the rules of your website and I don't see how am I violating something, as officiality is a (this word again) subjective concept without a clear definition, and furthermore, it is never stated is it official... relatively to what? Then, why is Wikipedia allowed? It is has nothing to do with Rockstar, it is edited by entirely random people (one don't even have to sign up, like here) and has absolutely no legal connection to the word "official". Thereofe, Wikipedia must removed from external links as well.
With those "evidences" you are trying to lurk me into somekind of paralogism trap, bifurcation so-to-say, as those "evidences" don't... evidence anything. ReiV (talk|edits) 13:16, 8 April 2015 (BST)

I have no problem with those edits, only the links. I did mention "official sites plus Wikipedia" as the links we generally allow on major pages (for a variety of reasons, but that's our choice to make). External links and Advertising are mentioned in our Cleanup and Behaviour policies. However, our Enforcement Policy also give staff the discretion to interpret Policy for the best interests of the wiki, rather than purely following strict codified rules. Lastly, as this is my website, I can make a final decision as to what is allowed here (as explained here). So, regardless of anything else, I ask you not to link to that site on this wiki. My reason for that I hope is clear - I don't believe it adds value in those locations, I don't have a reason to link to that site rather than any others, and I believe the motivation to be to advertise that site. Hopefully that's understood. gboyers talk 13:40, 8 April 2015 (BST)

Okay, it is crystal clear now. You should have began with "my site, my rules" thing from the start. So, as a glorious ruler of this Wiki, are there any circumstances under which you would allow to post a link to that particular website? ReiV (talk|edits) 13:59, 8 April 2015 (BST)

That only comes in where there is a dispute, most people generally accept that this is a curated database of GTA information, not an advertising portal or a list of every GTA website. If there are specific pages where a link to a site adds significant value to our users, where it is specifically relevant to that page, and where it's not just Yet Another GTA Fansite (or similar), then I would expect that to be allowed. For example, linking to the source of news, linking to more detailed information about something specific than we have here, or the official website of that article's subject (whether a person, company, game etc). But there is a lot to do here other than just link to other sites, so why not just try writing or organising content first? gboyers talk 14:09, 8 April 2015 (BST)

That wasn't my question. I see there Google adverts, so you are probably earning some money thanks to this portal. Everyone is, obviously, interested in earning some more. GTAall is not my website, nor I don't work for their owners, but I do like it. I personnally work in BIOCAD and my earnings allow me a lot, I don't need some low-tier jobs to sustain my life. So, yes, I can pay you to let that link there. If you are not interested in money, I can send you some more.. special stuff. For example one of our newest pharm-"products*. If you are still feeling uninterested, I can send you photos of my wife, naked. Or a of my sleeping daughter (12 y.o.), half-naked as well. Propose something. ReiV (talk|edits) 14:18, 8 April 2015 (BST)

No thanks. If you don't want to contribute to this community, that's fine. Goodbye. gboyers talk 14:22, 8 April 2015 (BST)