Talk:RUBY/@comment-27405645-20151011232333/@comment-53539-20151021111439

Thank you Bunai for beting me to saying that, I wasn't around to put that up.

@Evil, its also not our place to make demands like that. This needs to be resolved off site, not here. If you and Zep resolve it and one of you brings proof, thats fine.

@Zep, Evil is right in some sense, if you've used it in the past we can't give you the benfit of the doubt. However, its not the "end of" and we understnad people can change. Perhaps if you have legit vocaloids you need to supply proof on your own channel to quell any doubts? Even if you bring proof here to the wikia, once a pocaloider is found a lot of people have difficulty believing they've change. I believe Circus-P is such an example (or one of the western producers like him, names slip my mind sometimes).

@the "advertisement" thing... I don't know if this really that bad. the wort case is always when a produce starts a page and edits just to advertise themselves, be it Zep should have wrote something like "hows this" or whatever and the question of pocaloid is there to resolve, but the advertisement thing and pocaloid thing are seperate issues. We've never had a guideline set up about advertisments and as a general when it comes to producer pages we just have a "ask someone to set it up for you, don't do it yourself for your own sakes" routine.

usually when urls are posted in the comments its because everyone has found something they want to share... How far you can push this before its a self-ad is still debatable. But we have people talking in blogs about their first songs or UTAU recently... Is this advertisement also? Maybe you should have posted it in the blogs rather then here as no one really seems to bat a eyelash at this as a form of self-advertisement.

If anyone wants to push the advertisement issue forward, bare in mind we really haven't laid guidelines, as I said, out for this and so far all we have is the "let us do it for you" rule on producer page. Outside of spamming, we have to really knuckle down on the issue if this is a clause of concern. I'mm not taking a side here, as I'm anti-advertisment myself, I'm just pointing out some of the editors have reently made me question if there is a double standard going on.