User talk:GamerPro64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. If you're planning on addressing me, call me Gamer.

No I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. People think I am but I am not.


  • Articles on my radar:

(Video games) Darkened Skye, Omikron: The Nomad Soul, Meteos

Also, keeping these for personal use: Wikipedia:Good topics/count, Wikipedia:Featured topics/count, Category:Unassessed Featured topics articles

Gamer's Cold Storage, changes to Video Games WikiProject, For the template

List of commercial failures in video gaming[edit]

So I was reading your WP:VG interview and decided to submit one of the articles you mentioned to reddit. It caused quite the traffic increase. JACOPLANE • 2011-04-7 21:17

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]


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[edit]

AC Report[edit]

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[edit]