FANDOM

­
1,387 Pages

  • Gunshow20 is going back to his old self again. Now he is deleting a substantial page and promoting anti-myth policy.

    EDIT: As seen here this myth is decent enough to act as page on the wiki. http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Category_talk:Candidates_for_deletion

      Loading editor
    • I followed the wiki's procedure by adding a {{Delete}} to your page Grove Street Elegy. It is you who's stepping out of line by removing the discussion with the nonsense reason "No deletion without BOV and my permission." This is a situation that will resolve itself at Category talk:Candidates for deletion.

        Loading editor
    • For the record, Mantiix has shouted and screamed at Gunshow like a 5 year old on a thread he insisted on exceptional civilised behaviour. Mantiix also repeatedly deleted comments within the thread. 

        Loading editor
    • Monkeypolice188 wrote: For the record, Mantiix has shouted and screamed at Gunshow like a 5 year old on a thread he insisted on exceptional civilised behaviour. Mantiix also repeatedly deleted comments within the thread. 

      Ladies and Gentlemen, I just discovered that it is possible to shout on a website, physically! Sorry for being a noob! I deleted the comments because they were just useless and drama causing non-sense.

        Loading editor
    • Useless =/= Data, evidence, justification and discussion. This is not how a wiki works. 

        Loading editor
    • You can't accuse me of starting drama when I am following the most civil way to resolve a dispute (see: talk page discussion) while at the same time demanding that I be banned for "promoting anti-myth policy" (whatever that means.)

        Loading editor
    • Monkeypolice188 wrote: Useless =/= Data, evidence, justification and discussion. This is not how a wiki works. 

      Evidence? Do you have my evidence? Can't you see my picture of the elegy? That's not evidence? OK. Oh wait it's also not allowed to try to discuss it on the forum, welcome Monk, the best gta wiki bureaucrat strikes.

        Loading editor
    • Mantiix wrote:
      Gunshow20 is going back to his old self again. Now he is deleting a substantial page and promoting anti-myth policy.

      EDIT: As seen here this myth is decent enough to act as page on the wiki. http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Category_talk:Candidates_for_deletion

      I'm not here to start any argument, but to me, Gunshows reasons for putting the page up to deletion were reasonable. He had good reasons to prove why it likely wasn't even a glitch and no offense, that you probably had done it yourself. It seems that by the end, you had just been repeating yourself over and over.

        Loading editor
    • Mantiix wrote:

      Oh wait it's also not allowed to try to discuss it on the forum,

      You are the one who has repeatedly closed the thread and deleted replies, thus making us not allowed to discuss with you on the forums. Quite a double standard here.

        Loading editor
    • .unknowncommander wrote:

      Mantiix wrote:
      Gunshow20 is going back to his old self again. Now he is deleting a substantial page and promoting anti-myth policy.

      EDIT: As seen here this myth is decent enough to act as page on the wiki. http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Category_talk:Candidates_for_deletion

      I'm not here to start any argument, but to me, Gunshows reasons for putting the page up to deletion were reasonable. He had good reasons to prove why it likely wasn't even a glitch and no offense, that you probably had done it yourself. It seems that by the end, you had just been repeating yourself over and over.

      Problem is that I don't know what else I can prove, I saw this vehicle and posted in on MW Forum, I also could not believe what I saw.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20 wrote:

      Mantiix wrote:

      Oh wait it's also not allowed to try to discuss it on the forum,

      You are the one who has repeatedly closed the thread and deleted replies, thus making us not allowed to discuss with you on the forums. Quite a double standard here.

      Who said it is not allowed to close a thread when it is made by yourself? Who said it is not allowed to delete replies when they are obviously drama causing non-sense when yourself did it on the Goatman thread.

        Loading editor
    • I deleted those replies on the Goatman thread because they were off topic, not because of any dispute. Could you justify to me how This and This are derailing or off topic in any way, considering they are all about your fake Elegy photo?

        Loading editor
    • tfw when the "myth" is proven false and all you can do is cover your ears, ignore everything Gunshow said and shout NOPE, NOPE, NOPE, YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, I AM RIGHT, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE "MYTH" IN MY IMAGE, I'TS REAL

        Loading editor
    • http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/GTA_Myths_Wiki:Assume_Good_Faith?useskin=oasis all the kind users are hereby notified to act calmly and wait for Bcrats decision, as this is nothing but a waste of time.

        Loading editor
    • Mantiix wrote:

      .unknowncommander wrote:

      Mantiix wrote:
      Gunshow20 is going back to his old self again. Now he is deleting a substantial page and promoting anti-myth policy.

      EDIT: As seen here this myth is decent enough to act as page on the wiki. http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Category_talk:Candidates_for_deletion

      I'm not here to start any argument, but to me, Gunshows reasons for putting the page up to deletion were reasonable. He had good reasons to prove why it likely wasn't even a glitch and no offense, that you probably had done it yourself. It seems that by the end, you had just been repeating yourself over and over.
      Problem is that I don't know what else I can prove, I saw this vehicle and posted in on MW Forum, I also could not believe what I saw.

      If you didn't know what else you could prove, simply just say , "okay guys, your reasons make sense." Even if you faked it, it's best to come off honest. 

        Loading editor
    • .unknowncommander wrote:

      Mantiix wrote:

      .unknowncommander wrote:

      Mantiix wrote:
      Gunshow20 is going back to his old self again. Now he is deleting a substantial page and promoting anti-myth policy.

      EDIT: As seen here this myth is decent enough to act as page on the wiki. http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/Category_talk:Candidates_for_deletion

      I'm not here to start any argument, but to me, Gunshows reasons for putting the page up to deletion were reasonable. He had good reasons to prove why it likely wasn't even a glitch and no offense, that you probably had done it yourself. It seems that by the end, you had just been repeating yourself over and over.
      Problem is that I don't know what else I can prove, I saw this vehicle and posted in on MW Forum, I also could not believe what I saw.

      If you didn't know what else you could prove, simply just say , "okay guys, your reasons make sense." Even if you faked it, it's best to come off honest. 

      But the truth is that I did not fake it, and I can't prove that I did not fake it, that is why the drama exists now. There is no way for me to prove it that is real now besides just useless arguing that Monk likes to do.

        Loading editor
    • I don't want to say anymore because then we'll just end off going into an endless loop of the same points. 

        Loading editor
    • As I write to you boomer, a simple myth investigation by me has been escalated into a personal attack thread. As we witness again that a certain GTA wiki user named monkeypolice has once again returned to cause drama and criticise wiki establishment. The content posted by me included a rare elegy myth that was denounced by some users, it's perfectly alright but these users escalated to lodge a delete vote on the well-made page instead of a cleanup if necessary. As you can see the voting pattern has same intentions and people that stood against Goatman thread and I believe this will not end with the deletion but will turn into a coup against the wiki establishment as a certain faction is destroying this wiki lead by Gunshow.

        Loading editor
    • Mantiix wrote: a certain faction is destroying this wiki lead by Gunshow.

      Assume Good Faith.

      Users democratically deciding they don't want a poor unfactual page on the wiki is nowhere close to "destroying the wiki." That is just fear mongering, and ironically, ignoring the often cited AGF policy.

        Loading editor
    • Mantiix wrote:
      As I write to you boomer, a simply myth investigation by me has been escalated into a personal attack thread. As we witness again that a certain GTA wiki user named monkeypolice has once again returned to cause drama and criticise wiki establishment. The content posted by me included a rare elegy myth that was denounced by some users, it's perfectly alright but these users escalated to lodge a delete vote on the well-made page instead of a cleanup if necessary. As you can see the voting pattern as same intentions and people that stood against Goatman thread and I believe this will not end with the deletion but will turn into a coup against the wiki establishment as a certain faction is destroying this wiki lead by Gunshow.

      why did you have to respark the argument

        Loading editor
    • .unknowncommander wrote:
      Mantiix wrote:
      As I write to you boomer, a simply myth investigation by me has been escalated into a personal attack thread. As we witness again that a certain GTA wiki user named monkeypolice has once again returned to cause drama and criticise wiki establishment. The content posted by me included a rare elegy myth that was denounced by some users, it's perfectly alright but these users escalated to lodge a delete vote on the well-made page instead of a cleanup if necessary. As you can see the voting pattern as same intentions and people that stood against Goatman thread and I believe this will not end with the deletion but will turn into a coup against the wiki establishment as a certain faction is destroying this wiki lead by Gunshow.
      why did you have to respark the argument

      Because he wants Boomer to block me because apparently I'm causing an argument, even though I have done nothing of a kind. I will no longer be responding to messages on this thread, as Mantiix will only use them against me.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20 wrote:

      Mantiix wrote:

      Oh wait it's also not allowed to try to discuss it on the forum,

      You are the one who has repeatedly closed the thread and deleted replies, thus making us not allowed to discuss with you on the forums. Quite a double standard here.

      Well, when you attacked Mant's character by implying that he is a hoaxer who attempted to deceive the community to boots his reputation, I think that kind of inhibited the debate to progress past personal attacks.

      The page in question meets GTA MW standards in terms of quality, so I will delete the request for deletion. I believe the real problem people have with it is what it's designated as. Its currently accepted as a proven glitch, so because some members of the community are in disagreement with that, I'll post a discussion on GTA Myths Wiki:Existence Status Requests.

        Loading editor
    • Boomer8 wrote:

      Gunshow20 wrote:

      Mantiix wrote:

      Oh wait it's also not allowed to try to discuss it on the forum,

      You are the one who has repeatedly closed the thread and deleted replies, thus making us not allowed to discuss with you on the forums. Quite a double standard here.

      Well, when you attacked Mant's character by implying that he is a hoaxer who attempted to deceive the community to boots his reputation, I think that kind of inhibited the debate to progress past personal attacks.

      The page in question meets GTA MW standards in terms of quality, so I will delete the request for deletion. I believe the real problem people have with it is what it's designated as. Its currently accepted as a proven glitch, so because some members of the community are in disagreement with that, I'll post a discussion on GTA Myths Wiki:Existence Status Requests.

      Fair enough

        Loading editor
    • Very good thing you did Mant, non-believers and those who doubt myths shouldn't be allowed on a wiki such as this.

        Loading editor
    • DarkCityX50 wrote: Very good thing you did Mant, non-believers and those who doubt myths shouldn't be allowed on a wiki such as this.

      "Very good thing you did Mant, people who hold opinions that don't align with my own shouldn't be allowed on a wiki such as this."

      At least you're honest about supporting censorship.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20 wrote:

      DarkCityX50 wrote: Very good thing you did Mant, non-believers and those who doubt myths shouldn't be allowed on a wiki such as this.

      "Very good thing you did Mant, people who hold opinions that don't align with my own shouldn't be allowed on a wiki such as this."

      At least you're honest about supporting censorship.

      Only God can help you my friend. Everything I said was true, skeptics such as you shouldn't be allowed on a wiki about mythical happenings and such.

        Loading editor
    • DarkCityX50 wrote:
      Very good thing you did Mant, non-believers and those who doubt myths shouldn't be allowed on a wiki such as this.

      What do you mean, "I don't believe in myths"? I talk to them everyday.

      What do you mean, "I don't support your system"? I go to court when I have to.

      What do you mean, "I can't get to work on time"? I got nothing better to do.

      And, what do you mean, "I don't pay my bills"? Why do you think I'm broke? Huh?

      If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line.


      But it better work this time.


      What do you mean, "I hurt your feelings"?


      I didn't know you had any feelings. What do you mean, "I ain't kind"? Just not your kind.

      What do you mean, "I couldn't be the President Of the United States of America"?


      Tell me something, it's still "We the people," right?


      If there's a new way I'll be the first in line


      But it better work this time


      Can you put a price on peace?

      Peace, Peace sells, Peace, Peace sells, Peace sells, but who's buying? Peace sells, but who's buying? Peace sells, but who's buying? Peace sells, but who's buying? No, peace sells

        Loading editor
    • DarkCityX50 wrote:

      Only God can help [...] on a wiki about mythical happenings.

      Should I say exactly what everyone thinks I'm going to say...?

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.