Wikipedia

User talk:GamerPro64/Archive 11

< User talk:GamerPro64
Latest comment: 7 years ago by MPJ-DK in topic Pinball GA review
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

DoA 5

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please chime in regarding the ongoing discussion at talk:Dead or Alive 5#Sexualized boobage. WP:SPS has very clear exceptions regarding "acknowledged experts".

Peter Isotalo 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I just got this post after I chimed in. GamerPro64 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Loading screen#Proposed merge with Splash screen

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Loading screen#Proposed merge with Splash screen. We need more opinions and I thought you might want to leave one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cold Fear

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the push and the work on the article. The cordial nature of the process has changed my perceptions somewhat so I think down the road, I'll take a look at some of my other articles and maybe work towards getting them to GA standard. But I really just wanted to thank you, as I said, both for nominating the article in the first place and helping with the content. I'm in your debt, so if you need a hand with anything in the future, by all means, give me a shout. Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Bertaut (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, Bertaut. Not much of a content creator but I can always help out with anything you would need assistance with. GamerPro64 04:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Collaberation

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Gamer. I have been working on expanding the article to David E. Durston's infamous exploitation Horror film I Drink Your Blood. I have been looking for someone to help me expand this article for a while now an I was wondering if you would be willing to collaborate with me on this. I have already created a userspace draft for the purpose of expanding it, so please let me know if you are willing to help me with this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I can assist in some things in the article. What exactly do you need me to do? GamerPro64 00:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Check the WikiProject Horror Collaboration page for more information. I would like to have some quoteboxes added somewhere in the article, possibly in the production section. But just check the page I listed above for ore information. If you are going to help be sure to add yourself to the WikiProject Horror collaboration page.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OpenCritic Updates?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey GamerPro,

Disclosure in case you don't remember me: I'm Matthew Enthoven, one of the founders of OpenCritic.

We're still trying to figure out ways to make strides when it comes to Wikipedia and wanted to update with some of our progress. Previous conversations seemed to mostly conclude "too soon" and that we weren't "enough of a source in the industry." We wanted to continue to challenge that and get more feedback. Since the start of this year, we've added numerous features and seen our presence as an authority rising, so we thought it'd be a good time to ask again "what is it that you guys look for?"

We've added critic pages, with over 350 critics that have signed up and customized their page. To this day, we are the only aggregator that correctly attributes reviews to their author in addition to their publication.

We also added support for embeddable scores, which are now being used by The Escapist (see bottom of article) and Lazygamer. Websites such as Cubed3 and DarkZero now link to us in their footers, and PlayStation Universe lists us on their reviews.

We've been used as a source by Gamasutra (second paragraph), GeForce/Nvidia (see last paragraph), Examiner, Forbes, and others. We've also been added to Wikipedia Portugal on many pages. In the community, we're an officially sanctioned aggregator by the PS4 subreddit, and have been used across several reddit threads, often times as the only aggregator listed now. Metacritic has even made significant score mistakes, and a few of our users noticed.

We passed 100 publications included, and added word clouds that highlight key features and themes of reviews. We continue to see more and more traction across the board. We're adding 3DS and Vita titles now, with Fire Emblem Fates' review embargo already posted. We're the only aggregator that includes publications such as Eurogamer, AngryCentaurGaming, GameXplain, and TotalBiscuit, and we're the only aggregator that maintains the original score format. We also report on the percentage of critics that recommend the title, a statistic that allows us to include non-numeric publications.

We strongly believe that we are the fastest and most reliable aggregator. We are consistently faster than Metacritic, as several critics have noticed. We've invested heavily in our technology and our presentation, and believe strongly that, while we draw on the same data as Metacritic, we offer a more complete and informed picture fo a title. As we wrap up our next few features, we're hoping to improve and, well...

The reason I'm writing is: We really want to know what you guys are looking for. This isn't a "please put us on Wikipedia" type thing: we're young gamers and don't really consider Wikipedia readers to be our demographic, and as we have no advertising, they'd be revenue-negative anyway. Instead, we're just looking for feedback. We consider you, as a video game editor, to be an intellectual in the industry that we want to support and thrive in. So we want to know - what do you look for when evaluating OpenCritic as an "industry source"? What are the variables/factors? What are the things we can improve?

We're always on the lookout for ideas, and as we wrap up our next few features, we want to get your thoughts and opinions.

Sincerely, MattEnth (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@MattEnth: I'll start my saying that I've been using OpenCritic more than I have MetaCritic since your launch. I've even made multiple emails giving feedback when I notice an error on the site, too. I like how transparent the site is at this time. I wouldn't really how to help improve it besides sending my email feedback that I have done. I would like to use OpenCritic here on Wikipedia. But I don't really have much to help out here. I would if I could. At the very least I could make a new thread on deciding if OpenCritic is reliable enough to be used. While the site might be faster, "more reliable", and dare I say more likable than MetaCritic, consensus must be had here. IGN, GameSpot, Polygon and the ilk weren't being used for some of our Featured Articles until we determined them to be reliable enough for use, if you get what I'm saying. Keep in touch if you have anymore questions. GamerPro64 01:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Houston Press

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I'm puzzled by this edit. Why do you think it's not reliable exactly? In my experience, publications attributed to a big area of space in general, like New York Times or Washington Post generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I honestly thought it was a random publication. I don't agree with the article but if you think there's a reason for it to be in the article that's fine. Though the whole section feels completely unnecessary. GamerPro64 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
How is it random? How do you find it to be not reliable? I'm rather surprised to see you throwing around the same arguments as some SPA's. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm more surprised the article was using a tabloid as a source. I don't read the Houston Press so I don't know much about the publication. I'm not even following what's going on with the talk page at this time. GamerPro64 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Why is it a tabloid? Why are you calling it one if you don't know much about the publication? Please help me understand. I've been trying to mediate discussions with these SPAs, and then I come across edits like this from experienced editors, editing on the basis that they don't personally agree... Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh shoot. I might that the article was using Daily Mirror as a source as well. I'm sorry if I'm confusing you at this point. GamerPro64 02:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am confused. It may refer to the Daily Mirror, but it's prose itself still looks to be their own work, and I see no reason why not to consider HP a reliable source itself. I don't follow this edit either. You described what you did, but provided no rationale as to why you did it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I admit that one was unnecessary. I undid it. GamerPro64 02:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I Drink Your Blood Collab

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Just thought I'd let you know that I have created a Userspace Draft for the article that we are expanding, I'll include a link to it Here. Since we are collaborating to expand the article for I Drink Your Blood, I was wondering how good you are at adding quoteboxes or expanding article leads?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite all right with those areas. GamerPro64 22:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could expand the lead section and quite possibly add a quotebox into the article's production section? (you can use one of the sources I already have in the article or you can find a new one).--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. GamerPro64 00:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :)--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember to add this stuff to the Userspace draft and not the actual article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

re: GTC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hah, I'll help out of needed ;) Just trying to make sure that all of the hurricane work that gets done is getting noticed! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead Section and Quote Boxes ( I Drink Your Blood Collab)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Haven't heard from you in a while now. Just want to remind you that when you expand the article's lead section and add a quotebox into one of the sections, please do it in the userspace draft and not the official article. If you are unable to do so please let me know. Be sure to add your name to the collaboration page in the WikiProject Horror page. Here's the link to the Userspace Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paleface_Jack/I_Drink_Your_Blood_%28revision%29--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently in the middle of real life work right now. When I get a chance to help I'll let you know. GamerPro64 18:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I know what it's like. Take your time.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Casting Crowns studio albums

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking through some of the growing topics, and I noticed something funny about this topic. Although it does contain all of their regular studio albums, and also includes their holiday album Peace on Earth (Casting Crowns album), there are two studio albums that have articles that aren't in the topic: The Acoustic Sessions: Volume One (created less than a week after the last comment posted on the nomination) and also Glorious Day - Hymns of Faith (created in April 2015). Since both articles have long since existed and neither is a GA, should the topic be nominated for removal?--十八 10:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be. You should let the original nominator know about this first. GamerPro64 15:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
All right, I notified them. Also, I would like your opinion on Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Overview of Katy Perry/archive1 which I already commented on. Do you think the topic should be promoted?--十八 22:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not fully sure. Nergaal makes a compelling argument. Maybe wait one more week before closing. GamerPro64 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The only reason I would suggest discounting Nergaal's argument is based on the local consensus to the contrary by the other commentators, and consensus doesn't necessarily need to be unanimous.--十八 04:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Very well. I'll promote the topic tomorrow. GamerPro64 04:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine✉

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Arb Report

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Haven't talked to you in a while so I wanted to check in while there was a lull in the usual Signpost busyness. I'm glad you've been around to write the Arb Report. We really need an independent voice to write it now that I'm on the Committee, as it would cause no end in problems if someone more closely linked to me was the writer, no matter how scrupulously neutral they were. We haven't given you much to write about lately, but I'm glad it's been sort of slow. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I've noticed how slow ArbCom is lately. Thanks for the kind words, though. But I have to ask because this is bothering me and I might write about this. What's been going on with the Future Perfect at Sunrise case? Was there ever a decision on that? GamerPro64 02:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Nothing has happened since the January motion. We've dropped it. Gamaliel (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


Any objection to noindexing the Arb Report by default? A lot of negative stuff, real names sometimes, so concerns have been raised. Gamaliel (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess that's fine. Don't want to dox people. Need to see the edits be made so I can see what caused this concern to be raised. GamerPro64 20:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it was a just a general concern about Arb Cases, not in reference to something specific we wrote. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GamerPro64,

Thanks very much for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments etc.

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you really, truly aren't connected to the gg phenomenon, and/or associated with it, then fine, I apologize. (I generally prefer not to even spell that term out, due to the way they pop up rather like someone saying Beetlejuice only much more maliciously.)

However, here are the things that led me to the reaction.

  1. - the speed at which you responded, followed extremely quickly by an IP sockpuppet blocked very shortly thereafter which repeated many of the false assertions and accusations common to gg'er rhetoric.
  2. - the even strikingly more similar commentary from the other commentor about the gg'er "cause."
  3. - the over the top comment you left on my talk page, coming off extremely hyperaggressive.

Again - if you're truly NOT associated with them, then you have my apology. On the other hand, please consider how your hyperaggressive response came off, especially to someone whose friends have been swatted by members of gg. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

For anyone reading this in the future, this user has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet account of SkepticAnonymous. The irony flows through this well. GamerPro64 20:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
POTD

Hi GamerPro,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Starved Vietnamese man, 1966.JPEG is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on May 29, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-05-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Gamer, judging by the edit history of Wikipedia:Featured topics, it's obvious that some people (like me) confuse Good topics with Featured topics. This probably because even good topics have "Wikipedia:Featured topics/" in the title. I think adding an edit notice would mitigate the tedious reverting process? What do you say? -- ChamithN (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe that has been suggested before and it wouldn't work. Besides, its easy to identify a Featured Topic by seeing if 50% or more of its content are Featured Content. GamerPro64 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration report

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Note that the proposed decision has been posted in the Gamaliel & others case, and voting is in progress. Could you add a corresponding update to the Signpost's arbitration report? (Publication of this Signpost issue will probably be late tomorrow.) Best, --Andreas JN466 16:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I was in the middle of reading the section. I'll update it when I'm on a computer and not on mobile. GamerPro64 16:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

More on OpenCritic

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there,

Thought you'd find these articles interesting given our previous discussions/talks.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/167539-Did-OpenCritic-Review-Data-Pop-Up-on-Metacritic

http://www.pcgamesn.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/review-aggregator-site-opencritic-accuses-metacritic-of-using-their-data-without-consent

http://nichegamer.com/2016/05/25/opencritic-points-metacritic-stealing-data-information/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattEnth (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

First off, thanks for contacting me. Now, I must say PCGamesN and Niche Gamer are, unfortunately, considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia at this time. The good news is The Escapist is reliable and can be used. I'll look at this and see if I can place it in there. GamerPro64 23:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CIA GT close

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

That's pretty ridiculous. I had planned to soon reply yet again calling out that one editor's disapproval. There was really only one oppose vote, wow that's a poor consensus. It's ridiculous because if you knew about the school you'd acknowledge it as a campus, regardless of the fact that I put in a lot of info about the previous museum in its article. I suppose over time the campus' use will build up more sources and therefore bulk its article. Still, I'd revert your close and send the nomination to receive more attention. One editor's no vote shouldn't be enough! ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me talk to the other delegate about this to see if the closure was fair. But it was more than just one editor's no vote. The nomination has been going on for two months. The nomination was essentially stale. GamerPro64 16:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ɱ: I'm the other FT delegate. As GamerPro64 said, it wasn't just that there was one editor essentially questioning the inclusion of one of the articles. It was also that it was up for over 2 months without a single support or oppose vote, and with no other discussion regarding the adequacy of the topic, there was little else that could be done but just close the topic with the option of reopening it up later. Reading into the topic, I also came to realize that once the new campus is open, presumably there would be an article for it created at Culinary Institute of America at Copia to mirror the other campus at The Culinary Institute of America at Greystone. Once that happened, there would be little reason to have Copia (museum) in the topic, and its removal would not prevent the topic from needing the 3 article minimum (though you'd be free to debate the inclusion of Copia (museum) in the topic if you so wish in a future nomination). Either way, I think it would be wise to wait until the Culinary Institute of America at Copia article is created and gets to GA before attempting to renominate the topic, since I have my doubts about whether the topic would pass in its current state (based on very little discussion over the past 2 months).--十八 21:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Juhachi: Thanks for your reply. I too thought that the attention was lacking, but I hadn't known that like FAC it could result in a close. Keep in mind that Greystone is the only campus to have an article; the campus in Texas and the "campus" in Singapore aren't too notable, especially because Greystone has so much history before the CIA took it over. The main campus in New York would probably have an article if not for its large coverage in the overall article. I suppose upon renomination I'm going to have to lobby for input like I keep having to do, because these topics don't have a following from any other Wikipedians. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Loie Fuller (1901 film) 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Loie Fuller (1901).ogv, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Icons

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can Wikipedia please stop changing the notification icons all the time? I didn't like them to begin with and now they keep updating it every so often. GamerPro64 21:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

AC Report

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

How can I help? -Pete (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly Pete the newest case open for Arbcom is more complicated than I expected it to be. I want to make it as neutral as possible for everyone involved but, at the same time, the information I want to add in the piece comes off as one-sided to me. I think links to sources I'm gonna use for the report but I just don't know how to make it more neutral. GamerPro64 03:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to miss your immediate reply. I understand your concern -- and I'd imagine this is almost always an issue with ArbCom reports, which tend to be both charged and complex. I will do my best to learn enough about this one to offer some tips; however, we're aiming to publish in about 24 hours, and I will be spread pretty thin. I think the best solution will be to just keep the report very short and basic, and allow interested readers to click links and draw their own conclusions. Since it's in progress, it's not like we won't have the opportunity to round out our coverage later, when the case concludes, if we want to. Hopefully we'll get a better jump on it next time. Thanks for asking, and sorry I can't be more help on this one. I'll get back to you ASAP with any ideas after I dig into it. -Pete (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I took a crack at rewriting the lead -- which could, I suppose, be the entire coverage (for this issue) of that case. Does my approach make sense to you? Seems to me that if you can avoid describing the back-and-forth, you will stay further away from injecting your views into the analysis. I don't think we need to be super concerned about bringing our opinions into our coverage -- in my view, total objectivity is an unattainable goal, and shouldn't be a rigorous standard -- but we should be judicious about it. In this case, ArbCom is still evaluating the merits of even hearing the case (even if that decision is essentially made -- and it's a good idea for us not to jump into the next stage before they do. Make sense? -Pete (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Pete. I think it might be good now. Just need the copy-editing of course. GamerPro64 01:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Ibrahim Mekraldi

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello GamerPro64. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Ibrahim Mekraldi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this was edited in 17 March - it is not six months yet. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

...and Draft:Ixtl and Draft:Bjørn Lynne were also not yet six months abandoned. Please be careful to check the dates before making G13 nominations. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Must have miscounted. GamerPro64 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
POTD

Hi GamerPro,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:The Mystery of the Leaping Fish (1916).webm is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 16, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-09-16. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I've rescheduled for 27 September. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
POTD

Hi GamerPro,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:DO & CO Catering - 8968355090.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 11, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Two years ago ...
 
red user
... you were recipient
no. 997 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: GTCs

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Will do in the future. Sorry, it was an unusual circumstance, and I was more worried about including the new ones. Thanks for taking care of it. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ORCP

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi GamerPro, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I guess I can do another round at RfA. GamerPro64 12:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Arb Report

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there, how are things coming along? We plan to publish on Tuesday Nov. 1 -- do you think you'll have something for this one, or push to the next? -Pete (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I honestly do not believe I do. There is plenty of stuff to cover, especially with the two cases being closed and an admin being banned for sock puppetry. But I have to focus on IRL work for college. If you can find someone else to write up the article that would be helpful. GamerPro64 01:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I did the write up for the Report. I think we may be good now. GamerPro64 17:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to do this, it would have been tough to get to otherwise. I just reviewed it and made a few small edits; all looks very good, just one question I don't know how to answer. What's the "controversial policy" mentioned at the end? -Pete (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The policy I meant was the 500/30 rule. I thought it was under that rule. I'm not positive. GamerPro64 20:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Expansion Request

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Gamer. I was wondering if you could expand the article on the 2016 game Layers of Fear? It is currently in a poor stage of development, is undersourced, and is missing major information on the DLC which was released earlier this year. Please let me know if you are willing to expand this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I can help out here and there. Never played the game, though. GamerPro64 18:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, GamerPro64. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Arb Report for Next Issue

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi GP, I'm not sure where you and Peteforsyth got in discussing arbitrator interviews for the next edition, but in light of two new case openings, it would be great to have those covered as well. We are aiming to publish in about 10 days. Could you write something in that time frame? Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Phightins! I'll be sure to write u[ the new cases once they start. However, I'm still waiting for Pete to reply to my email to discuss the questions to ask. GamerPro64 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinball GA review

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. Yes I did see your updates, i am sorry but I've just had a deluge of things to deal with in real life, but i will complete my review this weekend, I promise.  MPJ-DK  23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GamerPro64/Archive_11&oldid=1146346677"