GTA Myths Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
GTA Myths Wiki
GTA Myths Wiki
1,460
pages

GTA Myths Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 3

< GTA Myths Wiki:Community Noticeboard
Sign in to edit

Closed April 2, 2015 as Successful. - Boomer8 (talk) 18:01, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Nomination: Ali Rocky[]

I am nominating Ali Rocky for the GTA MYTHS WIKI:Hall of Fame after giving it much thought. I believe Ali is one of the wikis' greatest contributors as evidenced by his impressive edit count but moreover because of his deep passion for myths. He's found many myths and sparked a renewed interest in Vice City myths when VC was a small forgotten category. Ali has showcased his skills time after time making templates and other things of that nature contributing and updating the Wikis' image. I don't take nominations lightly and being in the Hall of Fame carries tremendous weight and responsibility. In summation, I can attest that Ali is an honest, genuine person and deserves this great honor and recognition. Vote Yes (if support), No (if oppose). --Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:32, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

NOTICE: BUREAUCRAT ONLY VOTE. ALL OTHER USERS MAY LEAVE COMMENT.

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • A great user who has dedicated a lot to make this wiki great. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:32, April 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that Ali should be the HOF, he has proven himself a worthy inductee and has shaped a lot of this Wiki to be as it is today, even though we may have had some trouble, I still have no doubt he is worthy. - MattMythMaestro (Message) 07:29, April 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • It was a little bit hard to decide because despite the large edit count and revamp of the VC category, Ali hasn't done much else notable and has been involved in several large arguments on the wiki. However, what he's done for the VC myths section has been amazing and I guess the amount of time he has been here gives him a sort of legendary status to other editors, even if the start of his time here wasn't exactly the best. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:23, April 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Ali deserves it. I've known him for a few months now and from what I have seen: his finds, his handling of situations, and more stuff, his spot there would be well earned. Fear The Thunder
  • Ali is a great user who has put a lot of time into improving the wiki, and should definitely be recognized for his greatness. I'll be closing this now. Boomer8 (talk) 18:01, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Revoke Gunshow20's Parole[]

Closed as unsuccessful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 07:07, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't know already, I have blocked Jim infinite until we can come to an agreement on whether he should be allowed to edit here anymore. He's only been here for about 2 months and he has broken multiple agreements regarding his return. He applied for patroller, voted on a CNB, and has now tried to start drama by finding the website where we have private discussions. 3 strikes you're out, in my opinion, a user with his background, he should have been banned with the first violation. So if you believe that Jim should go, vote yes, and if you think it is more beneficial to keep him here, vote no. Boomer8 (talk) 18:29, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This is a bureaucrat only vote. Users may leave a comment.

Votes[]

  • No - Boomer8 (talk) 18:29, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • No - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:04, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • CHANGED VOTE TO NO --Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:52, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • Of course, if either of you have an alternate punishment, please state it in the comments. If he were to be allowed to continue editing here, I think a 1 - 6 month block would be needed. Boomer8 (talk) 18:45, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a hard decision but all the drama was unnecessary and you are correct, he has broken three terms. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:04, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll keep this open to hear Sas' opinion. Boomer8 (talk) 19:09, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be sad to see him go, seeing as I have only known him for a month, but I agree, because he's done three violations. Sorry Gun.Fear The Thunder
  • I see no future with Jim on the wiki. I can say that he was given a fair shot at redemption but went back to his old ways. He repeatedly ignored the rules and conditions and then escalated it to racism/anti Semitism. Considering he was blocked back in 2014 (1 1/2 years ago) you would think he would take it seriously this time around. He may be a halfway decent editor but his personality and constant pot stirring discredit his skills. Maybe in 6 months we could evaluate his block/ban and impose tighter conditions i.e. no chat, zero involvement in community, but that is a while away. What's most alarming is his venomous attacks on the wiki's staff off site and in chat to users trying to put a wedge between the b'crats and the community. After all that's been done I cant believe he pissed away his second chance but we have to keep the wiki strong and on the right course. I now wonder if Jim's only motive was to just cause havoc. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:52, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • After thinking about it, I've changed my mind. In the short amount of time he has been back he has done a lot for the wiki, and I don't think it would be fair to ban him over something like this. At the end of the day, Jim does more good for the wiki than bad, and I just wouldn't feel good if I weren't able to get my opinion out before this got closed. I'll keep this open for the rest of the day if any of you wish to change your vote. Boomer8 (talk) 19:23, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • Well if you feel you can handle having him back Boomer then I'll change my vote to "no" considering you authored this request. I really doubt Jim is going to stay out of trouble and just hope he's learned something from all this. I don't like banning people either but Jim has a long history and he sold us on the notion that he's changed his ways and is no longer looking to cause problems. Nonetheless, I will give Jim one last chance to clean up his act. I do to a degree like having him on here but if that means throwing the wiki into chaos and drama it's not worth it. So, with existing terms and conditions of the previous agreement I will agree to allowing him back to edit. I'll leave this open for Vaultboy to weigh in on. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:11, March 31, 2016 (UTC)
    • He definitely does more good for the wiki than bad so I think it would be a good idea not to ban him permanently again. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 07:07, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Glitch Pages and Glitches Portal[]

Closed March 28, 2016 as Unsuccessful. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:12, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this : why do we have pages about different glitches and a page about all the glitches in a game? Just click the Glitches above on MW, then select a game and you'll find the list of found glitches. But then again, why do we also have pages for individual glitches like the Spawn Glitch? If you go to the Category:Glitches and the Category:Glitches Portal you'll know what I mean. So, should we consider deleting one of them/merging one of them? AwesomeBoy (contact) 11:09, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Votes[]

  • Yes-Myth hunting master 17:50 March 18, 2016
  • No - Boomer8 (talk) 05:59, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • No --Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:41, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • In my opinion, the "Glitches Portal" category should be reserved only for the "Glitches in X Game" pages while the "Glitches" category applies to actual glitch pages. It would be easier to just leave both of these categories active with certain restrictions on them. Deleting categories on wikia is a pain in the ass as they really don't stay deleted and are in a "limbo" state after that. --Gunshow (T, E)
    • Then why don't we just put the actual glitch pages into the Glitch Pages of X game and put brief info about them there instead of making an actual page about them? This way all glitches will stay put in one place and not confuse others. AwesomeBoy (contact) 13:33, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gunshow. Myth(Please leave your threats here/Wanna Stalk?) 12:55, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost 17% of the pages are based off glitches, some of them have myths. Shortening 17% to 1% on a wiki with 510 pages isn't a wise move. --Ali Rocky: VC Myth Hunter 02:38, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
    • Then can we just delete the freaking Glitches Portal and modify it so that it leads to the Glitches Category instead which has all the glitch pages? AwesomeBoy (contact) 08:55, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • Same as Ali.--007MH MythHunter 007 Talk 007MH 08:50, March 16, 2016 (UTC) 
  • Most of the glitches on the Glitches are minor ones. Some glitches are more famous than others (like the swingiest glitch) and deserve a page of their own. Plus, having one giant page housing all the glitches doesn't look good. Boomer8 (talk) 05:59, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems unnecessary. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:41, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is this not closed yet. Fear The Thunder 1528, 2016 19:20 (UTC)



Request closed March 19, 2016 as Unsuccessful. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:41, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

Staff positions expand[]

Since the new staff limit, it needs to expand a bit, since new users join, almost every day, and it will have more activity, since most of the staff is somewhat inactive, it needs a place for new users too, if it doesn't expand, staff will be full of inactiveness. --SuperMythGangsta 15:04, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • That would make the limit for staff members useless. Instead, Bcrats should do something about the inactive ones. That's what I'd suggest. AwesomeBoy (contact) 16:02, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • We have too many staff for a wiki of this size. More staff is totally unnecessary. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 21:32, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • We will, but when we'll have sort of heavy traffic on the activity, but not now.--Ali Rocky: VC Myth Hunter 02:38, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • I know the reason that why are you asking to expand the positions but I will not tell the truth and the expanding of the staff positions is totally unnecessary.--007MH MythHunter 007 Talk 007MH 08:50, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem isn't the pure number of staff (In fact we aren't even at the staff limit) it's because that there just aren't enough users on the wiki right now that are eligible for staff, and if they are, they choose not to apply. At the current moment there is no need to increase staff positions as we don't even hit the limit. If anything, we need to encourage the current active users to apply for staff instead. --Gunshow (T, E)
  • Like Sasquatch said, this wiki doesn't need a lot of staff members. Even with the current number of staff members here, this wiki still looks perfect. It depends on the staff, not the number of staff members. We didn't even reach the limitations yet, so why do we need to add more? - Matthew103 (talk) 11:16, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • Now, we aren't at staff limit, and none of these new members are currently eligible for staff, but there are some who could be good staff members with minor inprovements. I think that now we don't need expansion, just members that could be good staff. - Death (Message wall) 12:40, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • The staff is already too large as I see it. If you have a problem with a staffer's activity then request for that user to be put in inactive staff. Boomer8 (talk) 05:59, March 19, 2016 (UTC)


40px-Padlock-silver-medium.svg This discussion is over, and the resolution reached was no. The vote has been closed by MythHunter 007


GTA Myths 'Wiki:To-Do' List[]

I just saw this on the GTA Wiki and I  believe it would make an important addition to this wiki as well. While we have most major myths completed, we are missing many of them as well such as myths in the Stories games and various easter eggs. The page would be located at GTA Myths Wiki:To-Do List and could be edited by anybody. There is no need for subpages like on GTA Wiki in my opinion. Please vote yes or no. --Gunshow (T, E)

Votes[]

  • No --Sasquatch101 (talk) 07:44, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes --SuperMythGangsta 09:27, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes--007MH MythHunter 007 Talk 007MH 05:56, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Boomer8 (talk) 03:29, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Matthew103 (talk) 06:53, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • I don't know if this is really needed. I have a sticky note by my computer loaded with myths that I'm investigating and will most likely get around to adding them as a page on the wiki eventually. Myth hunters AKA the editors on the wiki like to create articles and sort of get credit for that. If we had a "to do list" I believe users would probably not use it as they don't want another user to create "their" article. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 07:44, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • We don't have majority of the myths and Easter eggs in LCS and VCS. So, this can really help us.--007MH MythHunter 007 Talk 007MH 05:56, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • I think its unneeded nonsense. Boomer8 (talk) 03:29, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't see what its use would be and what it would really benefit in. The GTA Wiki has it to make it easier to document what is missing, as article standardisation, in a tabular form - GTA Wiki has factual content that is standardised across all articles, and some lack bits and pieces needed - Myths Wiki wouldn't really work like this. And as Sas quite rightly said, the objective of myth hunting may be 'stolen' by inexperienced users. Monk Talk 04:02, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • I also can't see how this would help or improve the wiki. GTA Wiki has a "to-do list", because they have "fixed" articles, unlike GTA Myths Wiki. What I mean is that Myths Wiki would never have a "fixed" article, because we're talking about myths here, and every myth could often change from UNLIKELY to FALSE / POSSIBLE to PROVEN due to the evidences found by many players and myth-hunters. If we have a "to-do list" and followed what it said, as time goes by the edited article/s need/s to be edited again because of an another evidence. So what's the point of having a "to-do list" here, if we don't have "fixed" articles? - Matthew103 (talk) 06:53, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to "no".--Sasquatch101 (talk) 00:11, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
  • I do see the benefit in it. Although this thing will fail (I can tell) users can put a to do list on their own pages. Myth hunting master 21:00 March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Vote closed as Successful' - --007MH MythHunter 007 Talk 007MH 04:48, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

New UserboxTop and Bottom[]

Note: The color scheme may need changing, feel free to vote on them. Hello, I know many of you users have Userboxes on your profiles, and I know I do. However, Userboxes are very clunky and take up a bit too much space, making it hard to organize your profile unless you stick them at the  bottom where no-one will see. Well, I have a fix for that. I have created Template:Userboxtopscroll and Template:Userboxbottomscroll that will condense a few userboxes and will allow users to scroll through like normal. I request that these two templates officially replace Template:Userboxtop and bottom for ease of use. Even if the vote fails, feel free to use these templates on your profile. --Gunshow20 (talk)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • That white theme right there is overkill, needs a change. And yeah, it will save lots of space. AwesomeBoy (contact) 09:33, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. Remember to Purge this page in case I update it later. --Gunshow20 (talk)
  • Those will be a great edition to User pages.--007MH MythHunter 007 Talk 007MH 03:44, March 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • You have made a very good upgrade for the old userboxes. Well done! This would be very useful and will save up a lot of space, making our profile look neat. - Matthew103 (talk) 03:52, March 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a good idea for users that have very long user pages but for the user with only a couple boxes this seems like overkill. I personally like seeing all my userboxes in a row. I support this only on the grounds the current userbox format is kept in addition to the new format.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 07:44, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • What you're proposing - replacing the current userbox - is not going to happen. I like my current userbox, and like Sasquatch said, people with only a couple of them don't need it. If you want to make your own templates and userboxes then go do so, but don't expect to replace existing ones. Boomer8 (talk) 04:15, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Vote closed as Successful - Boomer8 (talk) 02:39, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Staff Name Colors[]

As you may have noticed, the staff name colors have been changed in a similar way to the GTA Wiki. Bureaucrats are highlighted in lime green, admins in blue, and patrollers in orange. This vote is on whether to keep these colors to benefit users who may need to know who staff members are. This is a bureaucrat only vote, but other staff and users may leave comments. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:15, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

Votes[]

  • Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:15, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes (See Comments) - Boomer8 (talk) 23:19, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes (see comment)--Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:15, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • It was my idea, but I don't know if it's cool or not, but without the colors, It's confusing for others to know, who is an admin,bureaucrat,patroller - --SuperMythGangsta 13:55, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think its really necessary. Besides, the bureaucrat color is too similar to normal links. Boomer8 (talk) 23:19, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it looks good. The Bureaucrat color is a little close to what we have though. Red would be a good color instead of the lime green since the wiki color scheme is green. We can always have another vote on B'crat colors but overall I think staff colors is a good idea. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:15, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
    • I changed the B'crat colors to red. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 18:13, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks like your user pages don't exist. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 18:30, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
        • The red colors do look like our profiles don't exist. I just don't think its a good idea. Boomer8 (talk) 04:03, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
        • This color would do the job #A90606. Ali Rocky (talk) 04:19, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, a few other people in the chat, myself included, just came up with this idea and I will post it. Instead of the weird Red - Eyebleeding Green - Bright Orange thing going on, we could do Bureaucrats - Gold, Admins - Silver, Patrollers - Bronze. This makes logical sense and it would flow smoothly. After all, unless you know the user's rank themselves, you cannot really associate Bureaucrat = Red, but you can associate Gold = Bureaucrat, as it is the "top" position. Gold (CCAC00), Silver (797979), and Bronze (a46628) --Gunshow20 (talk)
    • I like Jim's idea, but the admin color should stay the as silver blends in with normal text. Boomer8 (talk) 04:55, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
      • The admin color is literally the reason I came up with this idea. Please no. --Gunshow20 (talk)
        • If there's a different shade of silver you can come up with that would be great; because in my opinion the example you gave is too similar to the normal text. Boomer8 (talk) 05:05, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
          • Funny how you say that Boomer, I was just about to submit the new silver and we submitted the edits at the same time. I have made it darker, rather than lighter which is what I was trying to do with the silver. --Gunshow20 (talk)
          • That looks much better. I'm changing my vote in favor of your color scheme. Boomer8 (talk) 05:09, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • I like Gunshow's color scheme too. The original lime green was too similar to the wiki text. The red, which replaced lime green appears better but reminds be of a broken link. The gold, silver and bronze makes sense and looks better. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 09:55, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
    • I changed the color scheme to gold silver and bronze. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 10:38, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Rename[]

Closed as successful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:15, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

I am going to make this very brief. It goes without saying that both our Giant Alligators and our Vice City Alligators  pages are very popular, and are well known within the myth community. I  was browsing them today and thought about other wikis, such as Wikipedia, and their naming policy. Not only is it professional, it would also make navigation very easier. My proposition is to rename Giant Alligators to Alligators (GTA IV) and Vice City Alligators to Alligators (GTA VC.) Let me know what you think. --Gunshow20 (talk)

Votes[]

  • Yes - --SuperMythGangsta 09:33, February 23, 2016 (UTC)SuperMythGangsta

Comments[]

  • I can see how a reader could get confused by the similar names so I think this is a good idea. Boomer8 (talk) 05:25, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • That's how it works on GTA Wiki and everything is much easier to understand. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:02, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Sea Monster Sightings []

Closed as successful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 15:25, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

It's been more than a decade since the release of the game and the Sea Monster myth in Vice City, is one of the most celebrated myths in the game. Unfortunately, the page doesn't feature a lot of things, so it just came to my mind to mention forums (around the web) encounters and sightings on the page under the section name: Sightings, then featuring a mini heading named according to the encounter, for example: The Midnight Struck, Washington Beach Horror etc. Note, that the section will only feature old encounters, as to make sure that no one is trying to expand it in anyway possible. What do you think about this? Please do vote according to what you think is optimal for the myth.--Ali Rocky (talk) 21:16, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • Yeah, I don't see why this is a bad idea. I myself edited that page to include a better photo in the infobox, but it was still just a screenshot of a player looking into the water I found. If there was actual photos of the Sea Monster on that page, even if they are likely to be false, it would add a lot to the page. --Gunshow20 (talk)
  • Sounds like a good idea to improve the page.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:58, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Request Closed as Unsuccessful. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:32, February 18, 2016 (UTC)

[]

2016mythslogo

Well... I wasn't originally going to make this for a lot of reasons. Of course, this is a bureaucrat only desicision and I do not hold that rank anymore. However, thanks to some support from the chat including fellow admins, I will bite.

I first created the logo for this wiki very early on and I have grown to have a disdain for it. It is very gaudy, the green splatter just pops out of nowhere and the text uses some ugly fonts that have poor scaling. While all these bad things combine to make a decent logo, I believe we could do better, especially with the fantastic background of this wiki. I have went ahead and created a quick logo for this purpose.

Changes include different fonts, including replacing Diploma with GregorianFLF (you can barely notice the difference) for better scaling and an improved version of Pricedown, this font still has problems but it is better over all. I have made the logo more minimalist and layed it out better so that it doesn't read "MYTHS gta wiki." Enjoy, --Gunshow20 (talk)

THIS IS A BUREAUCRAT ONLY VOTE.

Votes[]

  • No - Boomer8 (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • HELL NO --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:50, February 17, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • It's well designed but the quality of the pixels, is something to worry about. It'll be great if fixed. It's still great, I think I have some issue with my computer. --Ali Rocky (talk) 20:33, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • I think our current logo is just fine. The green spatter and San Andreas style words has always been with the wiki for years now, and if ain't broke don't fix it. Boomer8 (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • Aside from the current logo being a distinctive and instantly recognizable symbol of the wiki; I think this proposal from Gunshow is ridiculous since he crusaded to get rid of the logo before and that in addition to other things led down a dark path. Jim, you should just be happy your back editing and stop trying to mold the wiki into something you want it to be. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:50, February 17, 2016 (UTC)


Unblocking Jim (Gunshow)[]

Request closed as successful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 08:06, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

Gunshows apology

Jim's apology in the chat.

Alright, yesterday I saw that Jim (a known vandal) was on the chat, so I joined. From what I saw, he was acting pretty civil and after some words were said he finally apologized. To show his sincerity, I told him to make a public apology addressing the Myth Wiki on Youtube to which he agreed, and posted on my message wall on the Leprechaun Films Wiki. In the video he apologized for the events that took place in August 2014, but never took responsibility for the numerous vandal attacks that still occur today.

Here is a statement from Jim:

First and formost: I'm not a racist anymore. I've given up on those beliefs. Political Compass results from December 20th, 2014 that I have saved on my harddrive. Yes, those results are completely fascist, literally. But two years and some political sources that isn't /pol/ later and I'm all the way over here on the left.

I've also gotten a new appreciation for the Staff and what they do on the Wiki. As with a few incidents that I've witnessed (including the one going on right now ._.) the staff has really gotten better. I don't know how to say this without rambling on or sounding psudeo-intellectual, so I'll just say I lost my grudge against you guys. I don't hate you anymore.

So if you believe that Jim should be given a second chance to redeem himself, then vote "yes". However, there would be some conditions before letting him come back. Firstly, he would permanently be on parole, meaning that if he did anything disruptive or harmful to the wiki, he would be permanently banned with no questions asked. Second, he would be prohibited from voting on any community votes or RfP, as he has been known for rigging votes. And finally, none of his followers (TAA, AK-28, Funktasm, ect...) are to be unbanned as he is the only one from the group to apologize on his own free will.

Please think hard before making a decision on this issue, as he has proven himself to be a destructive user to have around. Although he has vandalized this wiki multiple times with his sidekicks, perhaps giving him a second chance would be not only be beneficial to him, but to the wiki as well. Boomer8 (talk) 04:06, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This is a bureaucrat only vote. Other users may leave a comment.

Votes[]

  • Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 04:06, February 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:22, February 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes (with additional condition) --Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:04, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • At the end of the day, Jim may be just saying it, but I got to take his apology for what it is and give him a second chance. I never hated Jim (just got annoyed as fuck), and after seeing his Youtube videos bashing the wiki, I saw that he was just a lost and angry person, but passionate about myths. If I thought he didn't care, I wouldn't be doing this. He just needs to control his temper and act how any other normal user on this wiki acts - like a human being who has basic respect for all races and religions. Boomer8 (talk) 04:06, February 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Exhilarating, I craved for this epoch in Gunshow's stigmatized career. Jim has ratified this clause, just as Boomer necessitated, demonstrating his reverence for Boomer and the community. Furthermore, this website has been waned since 24/January/2016 and this entails several roadblocks in the near future. Users, seasoned and adept, such as Gunshow can succor this wiki from this baleful predicaments. Even if there's a nickel-and-dime feasibility of repeat treachery, it'll bag him nix, as there's a prodigious staff out here. Considered everything, his resurgence is justified. May luck and God be with you Jim :). --Ali Rocky (talk) 08:15, February 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess that I can accept his apology. I used to respect Jim a lot but when he showed his racist side that respect was long lost. Maybe it could come back some day but who knows. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:22, February 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • Just thought I'd add on that before the whole incident nearly two years ago, this wiki used to be so much more productive when Jim was around. We genuinely did "get sh*t done". I think it would be very beneficial to the wiki having him back as his editing skill is a great perk to have. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:10, February 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Jim is a divisive individual and we all should be cautious here. Boomer -- In addition to the conditions you mentioned, Jim must also be barred from ever holding a staff position again. It is one thing to allow him back to edit, its another to give him all the same privileges other users enjoy. He is a black sheep, and it will be impossible to ever reintegrate him back into the wiki without always keeping our guard up. That being said I will vote in favor of allowing ONLY Jim back with said conditions. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:04, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

Reconsidered Unblock[]

Request closed as unsuccessful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 08:07, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

OK, after lots of thinking, I'm putting this up. It's time some users got unbanned from their infinite ban. In short, unblock those users who can be put in an exception from their past mistakes to get more benefited activity on this wiki. And by benefited activity, I mean not those which include fights, stupid arguments and shit that has already been discovered or won't ever be put up as a page. As new users these days that are joining are only doing that. If you personally ask me, I think Ali is doing the only real myth hunting activity nowadays, even if it is on an old game like Vice City. But at least he is finding shiz that gets a page for than the new users who only post on forums and don't get a page about. I admit myself, my previous forum post also didn't get a page, but I don't hunt that much now cause I've got down on studying for sometime that's why I'm trying to get up on the top 10th peeps of my class and when I do, I'll make my comeback. But for now, consider me dead on the hunting side.

With my reason being clear, getting back to point, new users these days aren't prospering the wiki activity as we expected. Think about it, what about the next 3-4 years? We all know GTA VI ain't gonna come until 2019 or something but still, what'll we do till then? GTA V has also almost finished up its myth giving juice. And GTA V myths won't last forever. So I suggest we unblock some users and forget what happened before between us and them. For example, Mashi. I personally again think that blocking him was ridiculous. Then AK-28 (he's active and visits this wiki everday according to a source), he wasn't even that much of a part of Gunshow's gang. I dunno if he rigged votes or anything, but WTF will happen if we unblock him to see if he changed? Sasquatch also had unblocked me and gave me a second chance and look where I am now. So guys, think about the wiki's activity right now and not what happened between you and those users in the past (this goes specially for you, Boomer). AwesomeBoy (contact) 11:44, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Note : This is a Bcrat vote only. Others are allowed to leave a comment.

Votes[]

  • Not Voting - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 16:54, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • No --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:23, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Not - Boomer8 (talk) 06:41, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • This very nerve-racking vision haunts me too, this excruciating question that where will we be standing in the next 4 to 5 years? Since the director of GTA has departed, this peril is turning out to be factual. The nascent users are unwilling to pursue their run-of-the-mill career. The users you are referring to are quite ardent and deep-seated with apropos to Myths Wiki. AK-28, I don't know copious about him but he would ne'er acquit racist, he acted dense by cascading into Gunshow2's diabolical nexus. We all know how man is fascinated by the concept of associating himself with a vile faction. Man is formulated for errors, none is analogous to the saintly traits. As for RageQuit, I possess a spine-chilling vision that he quit the Wikia network. We should implement initiatives before we confront the blood-curdling future ahead. I hope Boomer8 will think about what's optimal for the community and the future of our home. To some users who are thinking that I am being biased, I don't care about AK-28 being blocked or vice-versa, I was just sharing an opinion that he can't act racist, I only support the unblocking of RageQuit but only if the B-crats agree to this and I would respect their judgment --Ali Rocky (talk) 12:25, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Im not going to comment on things that happened in past, but I think that they should unblocked, since new users are not even looking for strange things in game, they are just putting videos from Youtube (most of them are false myths). Im going to return to myth hunting as soon as possble. Im not worried about future of GTA, since R* earned alot of money from GTAV sales (bilion dollars in three days!). - Death002 (talk) 15:19, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel that I shouldn't vote since I was one of the members involved in the Gunshow situation, but to be fair I was let off and not blocked and now I'm a B'crat. However, users like Mashi whom I had to watch every minute should not be unblocked. He created a bad situation and wiki altogether, and I actually still get spam from his messaging every contact mehtod he has of me (somehow) such as Twitter, Skype, R* Social Club, etc, and he has just dug himself into a much bigger hole. Him being unblocked, I feel, would have a negative impact on the wiki. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 16:54, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Unblocking users that have already been established as vandals is a bad idea. Mashi rigged votes and Ak28 is another vandal of Gunshow's that tried to block me and Boomer and overthrow the wiki staff. I think those users among others banned during Gunshow's day should stay banned. These guys still vandalize and harass the wiki. There are not sorry or accept responsibility for their actions. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:23, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • If we're proposing this, how about we just allow Gunshow to edit here? Lets get some things clear. Mashi's block wasn't ridiculous, he barely knew how to speak English and he also participated in swapping votes with Jim in return for getting admin rights. And AK-28 was very much involved in Jim's hate group. He was so radical that he actually tried to ban me and Sas. Aside from their disgraceful past, a year and a half has gone by without neither of them apologizing for what they did. Boomer8 (talk) 06:41, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • True, it's better to have a fine future without them. AwesomeBoy loves the wiki that's why he got a little bit worried, me too sometimes. But things aren't that easy as they seem to be, if they were innocent, they could've contact any of the members. Our WAM ranking has improvised massively since Gunshow left that tells how this wiki has progressed but the only thing that worries me is the future, in short 2017-2019.--Ali Rocky (talk) 12:25, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine, I got no problem. But still, I'm being honest in this part : new users are not doing myth hunting correctly in terms of myth hunting itself. I doubt we'll get any new myths on SA and above (except Vice City, Ali has already found tons). Until GTA VI comes, this wiki won't get any new improved activity. That's my futuristic view. AwesomeBoy (contact) 08:21, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, some of them should be. Even though I have been here for about 3 months (just over 1 month of being active) I have read many old posts on many pages (including the staff page). People like the leader of it, Gunshow, shouldn't be. It has been about a year since then and i'm sure that has made some of them new. Give them a 2nd chance. Look at Matt. A little while ago, he was offending people and after a one day block he learned his lessen. Give them a 2nd chance and if they go back to their old ways, yall can ban them.myth hunting master User talk:myth hunting master)

Multiple Map (Infobox)[]

Request closed as successful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 08:07, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

As some of the members are well aware of the recent infobox errors, they are absolutely great and informative but lacks some extra feature for a few but certain pages. The myth appearing in multiple games possess only a single map instead of the adequate number of maps. Sample: the Slenderman page, the myth is said to come across, in the vicinity of the Whetstone in GTA SA, whereas it is also rumored to occur at the Great Chaparral in GTA V. These pages aren't much but 15 certain pages that ought to be ameliorated. I volunteered to solve this problem, creating categories to sort it initially, fixing it individually is seriously time consuming. Boomer8 reverted the entire edits and termed it as ''Pointsgaming/Sherlocking'', I inquired Boomer8 about this contemporary complication and that why would I attempt it for some silly 15 edits? So we came to the consensus that a community vote would be optimal. Boomer8 is specifically on the point that these issues should first hit the community noticeboard, but my intention was never associated with any sort of mischief. Should these be implemented or not? --Ali Rocky (talk) 22:28, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Votes[]

  • Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 22:23, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Mythhuntingmaster (User talk:Mythhuntingmaster) 23:14, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - MattMythMaestro (Message) 13:44, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 02:55, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes --MH 007 04:18, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Death002 (talk) 16:32, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • I think having multiple maps in the infobox is good, but we don't need to add a category for it. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 22:23, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure, as I stated above that the categories were created only to sort the pages, so that they can entirely be fixed, all together. They were going to be abolished afterwards. --Ali Rocky (talk) 22:28, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Tom was saying, I agree that we should have multiple userboxes, but we don't need to add a category for each. - MattMythMaestro (Message) 13:45, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that you want to improve the wiki, but things like this have to be voted on by the community. And I don't know how adding categories makes the multiple maps thing any easier. But aside from that, I think its an okay idea so its a "yes" for me. Boomer8 (talk) 02:55, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
  • Same as Vault.--MH 007 04:18, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

GTA IV Theme[]

Request Closed: New Navigational Box colors will be adopted --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

I would like to alter the theme color for GTA IV, as the current theme color is outdated. And majority of the GTA based wiki's have their themes as well. Note that the article theme doesn't disturb or merge into the official myths wiki theme, and is implemented only on the articles links, navigation and info boxes. Sample: http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Abandoned_Hospital

NOTE THAT THIS IS A B'CRAT ONLY VOTE

Vote:[]

  • See Comment - Boomer8 (talk) 00:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • See Comment - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:26, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes on Nav Box --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Comment:[]

  • Look, I don't care about the different colored navigational boxes; I just really don't like the different colored links that appear on the articles. I'm not a fan of the infoboxes either. These two things make the wiki look way too colorful, when the wiki is supposed to have a dark and mysterious theme. Some myths appear in multiple games so what color are we supposed to have then? So in short, I'm against the colored links in articles and the new infoboxes, but in favor of the new nav boxes and the colored links in them. Boomer8 (talk) 00:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, the navboxes do look pretty good when colored, but for example with the GTA Vice City pages, it makes the page look too colorful and doesn't really suit the style of the wiki. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:26, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • I like the Navigation box colors but the links all over the page seem a little overkill. The color borders around photos is a good idea.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

GTA VC and GTA VCS Theme[]

I would like to modify the theme color for GTA VC and VCS, as the current theme color is outdated. And majority of the GTA based wiki's have their themes as well. Note that the article theme doesn't disturb or merge into the official myths wiki theme, and is implemented only on the articles links, navigation and info boxes. Sample: http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Cement_Shoe_Men

NOTE THAT THIS IS A B'CRAT ONLY VOTE

Vote:[]

  • See Comment - Boomer8 (talk) 00:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • See Comment - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:26, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes on Nav Box --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Comment:[]

  • I support the new nav boxes but disapprove the new infoboxes and colored links in the articles. Boomer8 (talk) 00:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, the navboxes do look pretty good when colored, but for example with the GTA Vice City pages, it makes the page look too colorful and doesn't really suit the style of the wiki. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:26, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
    • I like the Navigation box colors but the links all over the page seem a little overkill. The color borders around photos is a good idea.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

GTA SA and GTA V Theme[]

Hello, I would like to alter the theme color for GTA SA and GTA V, as the current theme color is outdated. And majority of the GTA based wiki's have their themes as well. Note that the article theme doesn't disturb or merge into the official myths wiki theme, and is implemented only on the articles links, navigation and info boxes. Sample: http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Big_Smoke%27s_Ghost

NOTE THAT THIS IS A B'CRAT ONLY VOTE

Vote:[]

  • See Comment - Boomer8 (talk) 00:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • See Comment - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:26, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes on Nav Box --Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Comment:[]

  • I support the new nav boxes but disapprove the new infoboxes and colored links in the articles. Boomer8 (talk) 00:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, the navboxes do look pretty good when colored, but for example with the GTA Vice City pages, it makes the page look too colorful and doesn't really suit the style of the wiki.
    • I like the Navigation box colors but the links all over the page seem a little overkill. The color borders around photos is a good idea.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:37, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement