Talk:GameTZ.com/Archive 1

Advertising?

Someone (Perfecto) marked this article as being an advertisement, and not being objective. In truth, this article was written by several users of the site in question, and not the site owner.

If you've got specific gripes with items that you think are not objective, please be more specific with them. Until then, I'm reverting the changes you've made. The people who worked on this tried very hard to keep this from becoming an ad. In truth, the site does not operate at a profit, and is more of an on-line community anyway. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dstumme (talk • contribs) .

While I agree that the intent was not advertising (as I was one of the GameTZ site members who helped write the article), I can see how it could be read as advertising copy. The article needs to be rewritten to a more neutral point of view in order to more acceptable to the Wikipedia commmunity. --nihon 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad, Nihonjoe, you see it the same way. -- Perfecto 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Only in that any article about any website is advertising. This one just happens to use more advertising-style prose than most. It was written to let people know about one of the oldest trading/barter sites on the web. Since it's been around in one form or another for almost 10 years, it's certainly worth writing about. --nihon 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Marketing speak

I've reworded several parts of the article to remove or replace wording that sounds like advertising copy. I've also marked the article as needing more references as the current two don't cover everything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to add some 'citation needed' markers? I can probably find cites for most of it, but I'm not sure what needs citation. I'm guessing the GamePro reference at least? Dstumme 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

More references

In order to avoid this article being nominated again, I think we should try to find more articles (online or offline) in which GameTZ is discussed prominently. If anyone can find anything, please post it here so we can make this article even more verifiable since there are obviously some editors here who don't think three solid refs are good enough. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns regarding article notability

As expressed numerous times, this article does not effectively meet WP:N. Please discuss ways to improve this issue here. The main focus of previous AfD discussions seems to be with references from Landsing State Journal and the syndicated television coverage. Both have raised concerns as being trivial mentions. None of the other references, no matter how many, seem to feature much significant coverage of the subject. 216.163.40.100 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

SPA SashaNein 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these seems to be a leftover comment from the last attempt at deletion from this sockpuppet. Dstumme 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference

Based from the except I get retrieve from the search engines, this article is nothing more then a trivial reference to the subject. Since the section it was being used as a source was also backed up by a different source, I figured there was no harm in removing it. --Farix (Talk) 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• "GAME REVIEW: Old PlayStation games offer cheap enjoyment". The Daily Cougar. 2001-07-18. Retrieved 2007-05-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Tagging

Sorry guys, but this article ressembles a fansite by leaps and bounds. Could someone possibly look into rewriting it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.210.230.210 (talk) 22:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC) Account was blocked as the edits were coming from a rogue (revolving) IP address.

I've never heard of "leaps and bounds"? What else have they written? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some ideas!! First off, the article is too short. There are only like two sections and neither of them say much about what the site is, just its history and userbase. Honestly it sounds like self promotion. The article tries to carry itself based soley on that, how 'popular' is supposedly is. Wheres the encyclopedic info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.210.230.210 (talk) Account was blocked as the edits were coming from a rogue (revolving) IP address.

I have an idea, too!! First off, if the article is too short, please expand it. You could make it three or four sections long, but remember to source it. It's been through multiple AfDs where it was determined that it is no more self-promotional than any other website about any other site or company out there. When you write an article about something, there is always going to be a little of "Look, see this!" in it. The trick is to make sure you have sources for any such content so you don't make it look like it's only promotional. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I surmise that this is part of the same band of editors that continuously slapped up notability and AFD tags for vandalism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it's a band. It seems more like one person with an axe to grind. But yes, it's likely the same person/people as before. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.163.40.100 looks to still be open if you need to add more socks to the list. Dstumme 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus before removing the tag again. This is considered disruptive editing. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.210.230.210 (talk) 15:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC) Account was blocked as the edits were coming from a rogue (revolving) IP address.

Seems to me that the only disruptive editing is being done by adding an inappropriate tag to the page. You've already been told why this tag does not apply. If you want it considered, how about explaining why it should apply? Dstumme 15:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And the consensus from non-sock editors is that the article is fine. The IP vandals need to troll elsewhere. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Don't be ridiculous. Nihonjoe is calling in favors from his buddies. There's no consensus here. The article is so poorly written that it doesn't recieve any attention outside out Nihonjoe's little social circle. 216.40.236.82 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC) No edits outside of article, indicating a single purpose account.

Perhaps after you remove large portions of text, or tag every sentence, or obliterate the page with large notices, or continuously file AFDs. Just because it doesn't receive any attention at Wikipedia (like many articles), doesn't indicate that it is up for AFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I go away for three days and miss all the fun. :-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't decide what's more fun on a Sunday night: Going through this intricate and long process of deleting relevant information and trying to weasel out a deletion of an article for a site that probably banned you some time ago for trying to jack $50 of a kid for Halo 2, or clicking the "undo" button a few times by barely lifting a finger.

Poor guy just doesn't get it. Wikipedia admins can be fooled sometimes, but after four bogus nominations already on file, you're not going to catch any of them off guard anymore.

It'd be pretty sad if he learned this much about how Wikipedia works, but instead of using his real account to contribute positively to articles, he dedicates several hours every week or so to the destruction of an article of a site he apparently has a personal vendetta with. Oh well, perhaps it's better if he just tries to ruin this article than to be ruining others as well. I don't want another User:Tecmobowl out there.

I clicked "undo" probably four times yesterday. My night was ruined!! SashaNein 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)