User talk:Datumizer

Category:GrimE games

Category:GrimE games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Source engine games

Template:Source engine games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Vaypertrail (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Left2

Template:Left2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Left. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unity engine games

Template:Unity engine games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gamebryo games

Template:Gamebryo games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 10:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrpg-chrono-2

Template:Vgrpg-chrono-2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fallout (series)

added a link pointing to Sierra Nevada

Fallout 3

added a link pointing to Sierra Nevada

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Top lists scope

Hey, are we interested in user-based top lists? For example Retro Gamer has Top 100 in #8, #9, but they are based on user votes. To quote, "The suspense is over. We can reveal what you, the Retro Gamer readers, have voted your favourite 50 games." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: If Retro Gamer is reliable, then yes. 13:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What about the existing entries in the list that aren't reliable? (P.S. Since you didn't sign, the ping didn't work.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: I guess they can be removed/ignored, but I still find them interesting. SharkD  Talk  13:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

	Happy New Year!
	Hello SharkD: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. North America1000 12:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Thank you! SharkD  Talk  05:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Our perspective on review aggregators

Hey there,

I'm Matthew Enthoven, CEO of OpenCritic.com. We've been following the review aggregator discussion you started, but I felt like it'd be inappropriate for us to weigh in there given the obvious conflict of interest. However, we did want to mention some of the points that we think about when it comes to aggregators, for whatever they're worth.

First, one thing that's concerned us from the conversation is the focus only on the score. While Wikipedia may frequently reference scores alone, we feel like aggregators have so much more potential. Available data is one area - OpenCritic is the only review aggregator for video games that correctly cites the author and the publication that submitted the review. We also supply infographics for game reviews and are continuing to develop there. We're the only aggregator that shows calculated standard deviation, and the only aggregator in games that displays and uses non-scoring reviews (such as Kotaku, Eurogamer, etc.) when calculating the % recommended. We're the only aggregator that shows the overall distribution of review scores, and we highlight where each game lies (ex: "The Witcher 3 is in the top 0.9% of games on OpenCritic"). We're also the only aggregator that lets gamers pick-and-chose their own trusted publications, creating a personalized and individual score. The reason I mention all this is just to say that we don't think about review aggregation as "boiling down all the reviews to a single number" - we think about review aggregation as helping provide consumers with as much information as possible when considering a purchase decision. To us, that means more than just the number - review aggregation is an experience, and we hope that we're judged, at least partially, on that experience too.

Second, we do strongly agree with the "kingmaker" problem in this area. For us, it's the greatest Catch-22: you can't become an authority without being referenced, but you only get referenced if you are an authority. Part of why we chose to maintain total transparency was to lower the bar for "being an authority." We feel that we have nothing to prove as all of our data, processes, decisions, and calculations are public. Even the "decision" of which publications are included on OpenCritic is based on a set of publicly verifiable metrics. Yet still, we struggle with getting over the "authority" hump. Small references from Escapist, Examiner (blacklisted on Wikipedia), Forbes, Lazygamer, and others help tremendously, but the "authority" benchmark remains far away (and rightfully so). I've raised this issue in Wikipedia discussions in the past, but still haven't received a firm answer: what exactly is the "authority" bar? How does one objectively decide what is an authority, and what isn't? Knowing this bar would help us tremendously. One of our pillars is to be "the source of the critical reception of video games," and thus Wikipedia is an important milestone to that end.

Third, we're concerned about the bar of "significantly different data." OpenCritic shares about 50% of its publications with Metacritic. Most of our games are within a couple points of the Metacritic average. Major titles are usually extremely close (within 1 or 2 points). However, we feel like it's worth mentioning that while the majority of scores are very close, the most interesting ones are the ones that aren't close. While those occurrences are rare (our estimates put it around 10-20% of games), we feel like they're worth highlighting. For a cross-platform title, Metacritic lists 3 or more different scores, one for each platform, and Wikipedia uses the platform that received the most reviews. However, OpenCritic averages across all platforms. What's interesting is when these different methods arrive at different conclusions, and we believe that highlighting that difference is beneficial to users when it occurs. But that also means that highlighting the lack of a difference is equally important, when two different processes and data sets arrived at a similar conclusion. Lastly, we just want to mention that even a few points difference has huge ramifications: going from 79 to 82 moves your ranking from the top 27.5% to the top 15.4%. So while 3 points might not look like much, it's a pretty massive score difference.

Anyways, these are just some things to keep in mind. OpenCritic will hit 100 publications over our deploy tonight, and with it come personal pages for each individual critic. We're creating the ability for users to favorite and subscribe to their favorite critics and publications, and will shortly after be creating user reviews. We're also considering overhauling our scoring system to something similar to Rotten Tomatoes and % recommended, but that's further out.

Thanks for sparking the discussion, and we'll be following it.

Cheers,

Matthew

MattEnth (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

!!! template

Hi SharkD,

I'm going through video game templates, and I noticed that you created {{E&}}. It's categorized as a WP:VG template, but I can't seem to figure out where it links to or what does. --Soetermans. T / C 14:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans: It is used on this project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. SharkD  Talk  02:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OpenCritic Updates?

Hey SharkD,

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fallout (video game)

added a link pointing to Trimetric

Hex map

added a link pointing to Trimetric

Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art

added a link pointing to Trimetric

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SharkD. 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrtbl-bl

Template:Vgrtbl-bl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrtbl-tx

Template:Vgrtbl-tx has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrtbl/text

Template:Vgrtbl/text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 19:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Video game release/sort

Template:Video game release/sort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 22:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Video game release new listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Video game release new. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Video game release new redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 10:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Vgrtbl-nolink listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Vgrtbl-nolink. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Vgrtbl-nolink redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 11:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Vgrelease tbl listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Vgrelease tbl. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Vgrelease tbl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 11:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrtbl/text/doc

Template:Vgrtbl/text/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrtbl-tx/doc

Template:Vgrtbl-tx/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrtbl-bl/doc

Template:Vgrtbl-bl/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 12:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wipeout soundtrack merges

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Wipeout series/archive1, I was recommended to merge the soundtrack articles as there aren't enough reliable sources to expand them, sadly. JAGUAR  22:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Jaguar You should contact the articles' authors first and tag the article with {{merge}} to solicit discussion before merging an article. The instructions in the FAC discussion did not tell you to omit this step. Secondly, you didn't merge the articles, you redirected them. The articles should go to AfD if you just want to get rid of them. What you did seemed very random without notifying on the Talk page of each article that there was any discussion going on. SharkD  Talk  22:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I thought that there wouldn't be any content worth putting in their parent articles as I've been told in GA reviews that including a tracklist is WP:GAMECRUFT. I might have been able to get away with it seeing as Wipeout is a music-orientated franchise, but sadly couldn't find any reliable sources to back it up, with Discogs being disallowed and all. Sorry for the initial confusion, I would like to think that I can get the first soundtrack article to GA one day at the very least! JAGUAR  11:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Tactical role-playing game

Hello and congrats for your work. I'm interested about improving the quality of my additions. Are you OK with me trying again with more refs to Metacritic, reviews and interviews, if that's your requirement? Mondopiri (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Mondopiri Yes, that will be fine! SharkD  Talk  06:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graphical projection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Focal point. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space flight simulation game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ref format and reverts

Hi SharkD recently we came across each other where you reverted/deleted some ref contributing edits. I have to say I'm a little bit irritated by that. First, in general I added refs to articles which are in critical need for such material. So, this should be highly welcome. Second, sub-optimal formatting is NOT a valid reason for removal or revert of valid (even critical!) content. And third, it is a wiki... please help with formatting that stuff. :) all the best... Shaddim (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Citation templates are necessary for bots to recognize references. For instance, when a page has gone offline, a bot can detect this and automatically link to archive.org. Please use citation templates when adding content to an article. SharkD  Talk  10:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary to use citation templates and information certainly shouldn't be removed because of the lack of citation templates. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Read WP:CITET. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand the benefits of using the templates, and I agree that in future I will try again to use them more conistent. My concern here is the light-hearted usage of reverts (which in my expeirence create often bad blood for little benefit) and the light-hearted destruction of content. I would like to give you here gentle reminder that other, less drastic possibilities exist.. e.g. a hint on the user page or doing the format yourself. In the end it is wiki, we have to live together here and step up ourselves for things we deem import (e.g. formatting). cheers and have a good day Shaddim (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's inconsiderate, because not only do other editors have to clean up after you, but also perform the job of a bot when a link goes dead. SharkD  Talk  12:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree on that I can (and maybe should) do better here. But on the other hand, also my time is limited and I see greater value in having two sub-optimal formatted good refs in articles than only one well formatted. cheers Shaddim (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Replying to your message (OpenCritic)

Saw you left a message (via email) on my talk page, but saw it was deleted.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of all this now is that Metacritic is just accepted as a "legitimate source," to the point where they seem to be able to get away with anything. As an example, Metacritic started aggregating this publication earlier this year. This one was added in Q4 last year. I don't want to come across as mean towards a small guy, but they're Alexa ranked 1 million, with less than 5,000 total social media followers, and with no formal journalism background.

How did Metacritic evaluate these publications for inclusion? It seems pretty arbitrary, knowing it's one guy behind the scenes who's making this decision.

But there's more... Metacritic has also started claiming "translation exclusivity" to create barriers between it and OpenCritic. Last summer, they were caught using OpenCritic as their source of data. Can we claim OpenCritic as a legitimate authority when Metacritic seems to recognize us as such?

I strongly encourage you to do some digging on Metacritic's editorial standards and ask why they're considered a trusted authority at all. In our opinion, much of it is because "they just always have been." Some of these recent decisions aren't the actions of an authority.

Our view is different. Our view is that, to be included in an aggregator as a "critic," that word "critic" has to mean something. It means that you're not an ordinary person reviewing games - you're held in some sort of esteem by our society and culture. That's why we have our standards focus on audience size and trust. What separates critics from ordinary reviewers is the presence of an audience. Metacritic seems to no longer care about this distinction.

Meanwhile, we're used in press releases, online marketplaces, community addons, publications we don't even aggregate, and studio leaders themselves.

It does start to feel a little hopeless, but the silver lining is that we continue to make progress. We're still in every review thread. We're still growing every month.

Just would be nice to know what specifically Wikipedia is looking for. Comments like "we haven't even vetted OpenCritic as a trusted source" feel awful, because we don't get any actionable feedback from that.

Right now, it feels like Metacritic is king because a) they aggregate movies, tv shows, music, and games, inflating their traffic, and b) they always have been. Not because they actually meet the "trusted source" standards of Wikipedia.

MattEnth (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I will have to read that Escapist article if you say it talks about plagiarism on Metacritic's part. SharkD  Talk  21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

They absolutely copied our data. They changed the links back after being caught. Some more articles: PCGamesN, PlayStation Universe, CriticalHit and here's a neogaf discussion thread.

We believe they're still doing it, too, just not in a way that we can prove as definitively. We believe that they load opencritic.com into an iFrame, which is why we see root-level domain referrals from Metacritic: http://imgur.com/a/VejgU

It's just frustrating to us that no authority wants to seriously question Metacritic when they're arbitrarily choosing publications, stealing data, and creating anti-industry barriers.

If we're going to be compared to Metacritic, then let's really compare to Metacritic on the metrics that count: how fair is their inclusion process? how accurately do they capture the critical reception of an industry? does their business have any conflicts-of-interest? how much data and transparency do they provide? how often are they referenced by consumers?

We think we either match or beat Metacritic on each of these categories. We were the first to have non-scoring reviews. We're the only aggregator to retain the publication's original score format. We're the only aggregator to credit authors in addition to publications. We're the only aggregator to be transparent about our formulas. We're the only aggregator that provides stats like % recommended or % rank. We're the only aggregator that Metacritic has copied from. We're the only aggregator to publish embargo times. We're the only aggregator with public standards that anyone can verify. We have similar traffic to publications like Nintendo World Report, Hardcore Gamer, GamePlanet, etc. that are listed in that same "critical reception" box.

The two publications they added in Q4/Q1 (PlayStation Country, OPnoobs) just really hit it for me. These publications aren't critics. They're probably getting less than 250 visitors to their site each day. Why did Metacritic chose to include them?

MattEnth (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for posting yet again, but just want to stress this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/AutomaticZen/status/877623080474075137

That's an editor for Destructoid, lead writer for PCWorld's gaming section, and a writer for USgamer all supporting using OpenCritic over Metacritic.

MattEnth (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Included in a GameStop email advertisement today... Link

MattEnth (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I don't appreciate your editing behavior at the Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge. Having a problem with a maintenance tag without fixing the problem is not appropriate and undermines the efforts who try to improve the encyclopedia. I request that you self-revert. Also, please see WP:OWN --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the references

Thanks for adding these references [1]. Much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgrpg-chrono

Template:Vgrpg-chrono has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SharkD. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Metroid games(chronological order) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Metroid games(chronological order). Since you had some involvement with the List of Metroid games(chronological order) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your diligent editing. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

SharkD works on categories, lists, images and templates and helps clean up articles by fixing grammatical and formatting errors. What caught my attention was that he has been diligently crafting one certain article, Tactical role-playing game, since Dec 2006. I'm sure there are others (maybe Role-playing video game) but this is the one I noticed. A member of WikiProject Video games. A committed veteran editor that uses the edit summary 90% of the time with half of his 41000 edits in mainspace.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)