User talk:McGPro

IN RESPONSE TO DreamGuy's DELETION OF A POST OF MANY MONTHS STANDING (CURIOUSLY JUST AFTER THE DISCRETIONARY PRIZE FUND WAS RAISED TO $100,000, WHILE A LOTTERY LINK HERE IS RETAINED! NOT SURE WE FOLLOW THE LOGIC).--McGPro (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GOLDENKEYQUEST.COM TREASURE HUNT & YOUR JUDGMENT OF "SPAM"
Opening Post: It's curious that you should delete the reference to goldenkeyquest.com, which is free - and not spam, as it is as accurate an example of treasure hunting as any that exists, with a novel social-network aspect that broadens the definition and therefore should sit well with any encyclopaedia - and yet retain a lottery link that has a spurious connection with treasure hunts. Moreover, there seems to be no logical distinction between the calibre of Los Angeles based community hunts (which openly tout for money) and the web based community hunt on the web to which goldenkeyquest.com refers (which, again, is free). Care to comment? Or, if you agree, I should be grateful if you would reinstate the article.

Second Post: Thank you, but we naturally reviewed this before posting and you appear to have overlooked the line: "However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." This is a legitimate article about a commercial entity whose enterprise expands the definition of a treasure hunt in a way no thorough encyclopaedia would miss. The lack of a logical distinction between those deleted and those remaining leaves the reference looking decidedly inconsistent - even, we might add, strangely biased. It is unlikely that Wikipedia would intend any of its members or users to leave with this impression, which is why a more open and less guarded display of intellectual rigour in the decision-making process would obviate our natural cause for concern. We should therefore be grateful for a fully thought-through analysis of the decision to delete goldenkeyquest.com yet retain the few that remain. In the interests of clarity, please address this issue of inconsistency. However, if you now agree that the article is in fact legitimate then we should be grateful if it could be reinstated.