Talk:GamePolitics.com

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The focus of this article[edit]

I've been thinking about this, and it seems wrong that the article about GP has a meager 4 lines at the top about the actual site and then a deluge of info about Jack Thompson. I would like to rewrite it, changing the focus from Thompson to the actual site. To do this I would like to greatly expand the information about GP, and consolidate the retelling of Thompson's various run-ins down to the core facts. I'm hoping for suggestions, comments, and ideas on what needs to stay and what can be cut down/removed. Sprngpilot


  • I definately agree with this. Perhaps the section on Jack should be toned down and that piece detailing the exact threat regarding Jack's deluge of email due to the comment feature (and subsequent reader response) could probably be boiled down to a paragraph or two.

I'd probably create a seperate section for the Gamepolitics.com Hot Coffee outbreak. A small paragraph on each of the corrospondants currently active might be good, too. Maybe a sub-section covering the Pixelante t-shirt contest and the Flowers for Jack coverage (and subsequent response) under the Jack Thompson vs. Game Politics section.

-Cheers

Editing Talk:GamePolitics.com[edit]

Adding stuff like the legestration tracker, and some of the articles covered and maybe some of the reactions/comments to those articles. I also think that it would be a good idea to keep the article on Jack Thompson's part of the article intact. especeally the usernames he has used to repeatly harass GamePolitics.

Thats just my two cents. 

- Cecil

Thompson's Accounts[edit]

We *really* need to stop listing Thompson's new accounts and the day he gets them (at least without context). It's unimportant clutter. Besides, this entry should be like an encyclopedia, not a blog for current events. Sprngpilot 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. It is important to have a record of just how bad his cyberstalking gets. Though maybe it could relay that information and be shortened.
I don't really see how important it is to chronicle every last username this guy has ever used, especially given that most of them are banned and their posts deleted, so there's nothing particularly interesting that anybody can find by looking up the username on the site. I would also agree with some others that there's something perverse about this article having only a little bit of info about the site it's supposedly about, and a lot about this one person who's an antagonist of it. I would trim down the Thompson stuff a great deal; note the major events that took place in the struggle between him and the site, but not all the excruciating details of every last thing that was ever done by or about him. *Dan T.* 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree stuff should be added about GamePolitics.com itself, but the main reason this article exists was in an attempt to trim down Jack's main articles by moving the stuff into smaller sub articles. If you then turn around and delete the content here... Jack wins.
Actually that's completely false. The more attention we give him, the more he wins. He's egomaniacal; he gets off on the thought of people devoting this much time to his tiniest efforts. A simple check of his rantings on GP shows this. He delights in getting under people's skin. By attempting to document his every move you are, in fact, helping him. 67.161.61.97 19:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually THAT'S completely false. I'm a regular on GP. He starts being ignored, he starts claiming victory. He isn't a normal troll. It hurts him having every single wrong thing he claims thoroughly destroyed. In the meantime, deleting this content just bows down and kisses Thompson's butt.
I'm a regular too, so that does not give you any special authority or insight. You have no evidence of your claims, merely hyperbole that elevates him to some sort of mystical super troll status. You're delusional if you think deleting the worthless fluff in this article is somehow helping him. Drawing attention to him is far more helpful for his antics. Besides, I'd like to point out that he claims victory all the time, whether he's ignored or not. The least we can do is change this article from a twisted shrine devoted to him and make it an actual ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY about GP.
Well what would you suggest? It's a site hosted by livejournal, it posts politcal news stories involving games it's frequently trolled by Jack, it has a legislation tracker, and that's about it. There really isn't a long history about it or anything special.
I guess in a way he does have supertroll status. How many people do you know makes 47 LiveJournal accounts? I don't think it kisses his butt. I believe it lists the dirt on him. Dirt Thompson does not want people to see. Also, Yeah silence towards him would make him yell victory. As far as adding stuff It [GamePolitics] posts news articles involving videogames, It has a legistration tracker, a Frappr showing what parts of the world GP readers are from. Its [GamePolitics] selling Pixelante shirts and the proceeds go to charity (Getwellgamers I think but am not sure.)GamePolitics has a few Podcasts. It also has links to other news articles offsite mostly (I think) at http://www.kotaku.com. GamePolitics is also the unoffical home of Jack Thompson. I think his insults and threats to gamers should be seen to the public. Mainly becuase I believe the general public does not get to see this kind of behavior from him. I am also a regular (At lest I like to think I am.) One of the things I like to do is keep up with the usernames he comes up with. I post a list of them on the site. Thompson is willing to to break LiveJournal's Terms of Service over and over to post rude and hurtful messages to people. Jack does not want people to see the things he has said and done towards the gaming community. If you censor the articles on him, then he has won. Cecil475
Fixed Ace ofspade 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does all this belong on Wikipedia?[edit]

Whether the guy "wins" or "loses" is completely irrelevant to either Jack Thompson (attorney) or GamePolitics.com, which are encyclopedia articles. Is the information verifiable? Is it original research? If the answer to either of these is yes, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.–RHolton≡– 11:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprngpliot? Ace of spades? any other gpers?[edit]

You here? we should get to work. Anyways,im not really the best editor in the world,but i can still help. First of all,Minor celeberties that have posted on the forum. we have the one patrick fellow who discovered hot coffe,and tom b.

..No one seems to be here[edit]

Sad. guess theres not much we can do then.

Verifiability[edit]

I just removed a substantial amount of text, due in part to lack of verifiability. The section on Jack Thompson was totally out of proportion as well, so I've cut it to a single sentence. Also, I left out the part about the creator of the Hot Coffee mod posting to the site, for similar reasons. If somebody could point to something that verifies it, I'd reconsider, but do we actually know who that person is in the first place? --Michael Snow 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Game politics sm.jpg[edit]

Image:Game politics sm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GP interviewed briefly in boston herald[edit]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1080874 Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GamePolitics Updates[edit]

GamePolitics no longer allows you to post a comment without making an account. This should be updated on the Wikipedia article. Also, the site was updated for a third time just a few months ago.

How much longer[edit]

should this page stay here? No reliable sources (self-references only) blatant self-promotion and a magnet for libelish vandalism which noone seems concerned to remove. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider a {{prod}}

I hatchetized some more unsourced content, flagged a bit. sinneed (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped out some more unsourced stuff, integrated the MTV article into the body, dropped one of the ELs to the site itself. Added a reflist.sinneed (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GamePolitics.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GamePolitics.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GamePolitics.com&oldid=1207354587"