User talk:GamerPro64

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.

Misc.

• Articles on my radar:

(Video games) Darkened Skye, Lair (video game), Advent Rising, Bomberman: Act Zero, Ride to Hell: Retribution, Vanishing Point (video game)

(Others) They Might Be Giants discography

• To be reviewed: Featured List audit page to look at

• I am currently the director for Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates along with delegate Juhachi
• Also lead editor of the Arbitration Report for the Signpost.

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

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

Hi GamerPro64,

Did you happen to get my ping at Talk:Dyscourse? --Soetermans. T / C 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've been trying to figure out how to answer it. GamerPro64 14:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice find. I'll have to go over that if I ever go back to the LucasArts adventure topic—big interviews like these are goldmines. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot that this was a thing before writing for the Signpost. I expect interesting things to happen from this. GamerPro64 00:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gamer, I have been perhaps a bit over-WP:BOLD with my changes, can you please double-check the revised WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-18/Arbitration_report? Thanks. Also, I am wondering if adding material is allowed; I would like to stick in a couple sentences pointing out the voter-guides which have been made available, and the candidate-question-pages, so that interested Signpost readers can click to get involved. p.s. Agree this is an interesting season.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done with my revisions. Please give them a once-over with a critical wiki-eye. p.s. I was sore tempted to add a final sentence, after the list of arbs not up for re-election this year... "May the 2016 arbitration committee members wear their official ArbCom bathrobes with honour." But I resisted doing so, in deference to the dignity of the publication.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think you made the article more presentable than I would have. Thanks for the help. GamerPro64 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are certainly welcome; unfortunately I am new at this, so mostly I just wrote in my normal 'Mainspace Style' which is pretty bland, and heavy on the wiki-links. Presentable is not the same as readable/enjoyable, and you have a style that is terse and to the point, plus kinda fun to read. More important than presentable, in my book. Feel free to ping my usertalk if you have something you want to collaborate on, and I'll try to lend a hand again, and less of a heavy-handed one, as I get used to the way it works. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamer, I too am working on the arb-report now, due to lack of time earlier... maybe if I type really fast, I'll work off some of those recently-acquired excess calories?  :-)     Let me know if you want to divvy up the effort in some specific way. I'm also happy to just jointly edit the arb-report on-the-fly. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is pretty close now. Please review, if you have some time -- Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-25/Arbitration_report. Also ping Ryk72 who got this thing rolling, and ping Samtar in case they have time to dip their feet into the Signpost pool this weekend, as it were.  :-)     Besides the closed ARBPIA3 case and the ongoing ACE2015 proceedings, do we need to mention any other arb-related happenings, Gamer? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any updates on the Noticeboard so I think we're up to date right now. I think the report is good for this week. Might get copyedited beforehand. GamerPro64 19:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Lambian is already on the job.  :-)     I have checked the voter-guides to see if other people were making updates, and will need to tweak Lady Cath's dataset, they have changed a few of their recommendations today, but otherwise everything seems to be copacetic. Nobody had added any ^{[cetacean needed]} tags yet anyways. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider fixing camel case to be copyediting. Anywho, if there's anymore fixing up we'll figure that out in the future (like when it goes live). GamerPro64 21:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoming, copyediting, I'm fuzzy on the whole meaning-spectrum of that stuff. Appreciated in any case, thanks Lambian. Piece is live now, Tony and a couple other people made some fixes. Samtar was too lazy this time around, probably stuffed with leftover turkey and cranberry, no doubt  :-)     Or playing heavy-metal head-banger on youtube!  ;-)     Working on this arb-report stuff, seems like a good way to deeply dive into the proceedings, though. It is important, too, for summarizing the strangeness; ARBPIA3 was accepted mostly on an IAR basis, for instance; rather than to further examine the named parties, it was meant as a "upgrade" of ARBPIA2. Gamer, does the Signpost do interviews, like with sitting arbs, or with arb-candidates? Or would that turn into too many words, for the average signpost readership to happily stomach? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a wee crack at some copyediting for the ARBPIA3 section, mostly phrasing & grammar changes. I think it's "good to go", but please feel free to revert anything that doesn't seem right. I'd also like to propose that "75.108" gets a share of the byline. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing so. Done with. GamerPro64 21:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for the thought, I would prefer to, you know, remain anon.  :-)     That is the whole point of being an IP, right? I'm happier with the official column-editor getting the masthead credit, just like mainspace credit goes to the trademark owned by the WMF. Folks who care can check the edit-history.

  Also worth mentioning, somewhat in the <humour> vein, when the ARBPIA/ACE2015 folks come for my wiki-head, for accidentally misrepresenting the outcome of the last three arbcases/arb'lections in some fashion, I can honestly say I was only doing what the boss said, and helping over the turkey-holiday. Gamer, after I direct the pitchforks your way, you can direct the pitchforks to User:Go_Phightins! in exactly the same cabal-approved fashion, and in turn *they* can pass the buck along to User:Jimbo_Wales, and pretty soon we'll get enough noticeboard-drama to write up ARBPIA4 and ACE2016. Genius! Everybody is now getting twice the salary.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woo… GamerPro64 22:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, would you like access to the Rollback tool? You're a much trusted user, and I've no doubt you would use the tool for the benefit of Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could've sworn I already had access. If I don't, sure that'd be nice to use. GamerPro64 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) beat me to it. In any case, welcome to the rollback team. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I got was auto patrol. I thought that was different. Anyhow, thanks, Salvidrim. GamerPro64 23:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is, sorry. I tweaked for rollbacker, you should have that now. (Long morning, ya know?)... Anyway, enjoy the new tools, as far as I am concerned you've long since earned them :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. Hope to put it into good use. GamerPro64 23:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I only noticed you weren't "auto-patrolled" because the software prompted me to "patrol" a page you had created (an SPI report, of all things). I've always advocated that "autopatrolled" should be granted liberally to anyone who is generally trusted not to create CSD'able articles. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't also add Rollback because it is vastly overrated and made entirely redundant by Twinkle, which is what I recommend anyone use. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're ready, fancy a (co-)nomination? -- samtar ^whisper 18:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do that but my last nomination was back in July. Wouldn't that be considered too early? GamerPro64 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, five months ago.. The preference seems to be at least six, but seeing as you withdrew from your previous I think you could get away with five -- samtar ^whisper 19:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think six would be the preference. But I saw some people saying I should've waited an entire year to make another RfA. Some people are hard to please. GamerPro64 19:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to samtar, they are a Kremlin provocateur!! I know cause Lady Cath said so, that USSR thing refuses to go away!!  :-)     forgot to sign... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

75.108 is a MI6 agent out to sow discord, but more importantly, maybe wait until January (new year new admin and all that)? -- samtar ^whisper 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of RfAs, have you ever done one? I don't recall seeing you nominated there. GamerPro64 17:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness me no - I'm merely making comments about who I'd like to see (as one of those editor people you tend to find around here) become an admin! -- samtar ^whisper 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do the honors please? I'm trying to write a subsection about an exit poll , see discussion on User_talk:Guy_Macon. I will post a list of people to contact in a short while, and some rough draft questions.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Arbitration_report&action=edit&redlink=1

Also ping Samtar and Ryk72 who may want to have a piece of the final arb-report prior to the end of ACE2015.

p.s. For the "2015-12-09" issue which comes out on December 12th or 13th, I was planning to interview the three scrutineers and the three election-commissioners, if they have spare time for signpost-stuff, and *if* the final results have not been announced. (They might be too busy though, iff results have NOT been announced.) Gamer, were you planning on doing newly-elected-arb-interviews for the 12th-n-13th issue one week from now, or for the 19th-n-20th issue two weeks from now? Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have ~146 raw names for the first-pass-cut. User_talk:75.108.94.227/exit_poll_possible_participants_list. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the draft for the report. And yes U was planning on interviewing the newly elected. Not sure when, though. GamerPro64 16:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay , here is the rough draft of the exit poll. User_talk:75.108.94.227/exit_poll_possible_questions. Can you look at these, and help me fix screwups?  :-)     If people want to email in their answers, do you 1) have Special:Email/GamerPro64 enabled currently, and 2) have the time && inclination to process the email-based replies? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have an email connected here and yeah I think I have time to process them with finals coming up. GamerPro64 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh!  :-)     Did you mean "no I don't think I have time because finals are coming up"?  ;-)     I will add that info to the blurb. My plan is to send out the usertalk-blurb later today, and then create a preliminary subsection of the arbReport that mentions the exit-poll.

  As people respond, we can process their responses in small batches, and add the summary-data right into the arbReport. So although there is a WP:DEADLINE for when the arbReport goes live, I would prefer to let people keep submitting answers as long as they like, and us just adding info as and when survey-answers arrive. To keep us from stepping on each other's toes, I suggest that we add info in batches of ten: once ten on-wiki responses come in, I will summarize those ten into a row for the arbReport, and once ten more come in, will add another row just for that second batch of ten. Same for you, with the answers-by-email, once you have ten off-wiki responses summarize *just* those ten, and add a new row to the arbReport, then once you have a second bunch of ten off-wiki responses, summarize just that batch into a new row, and so on. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More than happy to help out, but offline for parts of the next day or so; will probably be limited to copyediting, fixups, etc. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay , with help from Ryk72 , the questions and the blurb are almost ready. I'm checking through the list of people to be polled, to see if there are any to be elided -- people that have opted out of mass messages via the category, or people that are blocked currently, or whatever. Gamer, do you have time this morning to send out some of the messages? Maybe Ryk72 can help with that job, since they are also willing to respond to emails. I'm going to be missing in action for a few hours, but will be back this evening. Not sure if the signpost will be published today, or tomorrow.  :-)     But if you can take a peek at the questionnaire, and let me know if it looks Just Wrong, or instead Probably Okay, that would help. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Which part is the poll that would be sent out? GamerPro64 14:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To make it maximum-easy on people, I was planning on posting it straight into their usertalkpages. Easiest way to do that, would be to make a userspace subpage like User:GamerPro64/ACE2015_exit_poll , and paste in (the top part of) the contents of User_talk:75.108.94.227/exit_poll_possible_questions there. Afterwards, you can click down through the list of "unmarked" names at User_talk:75.108.94.227/exit_poll_possible_participants_list, and on each of their usertalks, click new section, and then use simply {{subst:User:GamerPro64/ACE2015_exit_poll}} to magically "pull" in the contents of the poll. Once you save, they should be able to have their own editable-copy of the exit-poll. They can either fill it out on-wiki, or paste the plaintext into an email, and fill it out thataway. Make sense? Sound incorrect somehow? I'm happy to help send out the surveys, but we will get a higher rejection-rate if the message is signed by an anon.  ;-)     I'll be back in time to help process the results this evening, though. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. I'll start messaging people now. Gotta love the Signpost I guess. GamerPro64 14:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly, couldn't we have done this for next weeks edition instead of making one for this week near the end? I honestly feel like we're pushing ourselves to get a print every week. I wasn't even planning on publishing one for this upcoming issue. GamerPro64 14:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Up to you, of course. But yes, we're cutting it pretty thin for this week. Composing the questions turned out to be harder than I thought, and my election commissioner was MIA for a few days, so I didn't think we'd get a response.  :-)     Then we did, so I went ahead and put the wheels into motion. We can abort, if you would rather wait, or we can publish the results as they come in. I have tested the subst-trick, it seems to work.

• (cur | prev) 14:46, 5 December 2015‎ 75.108.94.227 (talk)‎ . . (55,521 bytes) (+295)‎ . . (→‎ACE2015 exit poll answers from 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC): new section) (undo)[reply]
• (cur | prev) 14:46, 5 December 2015‎ 75.108.94.227 (talk)‎ . . (55,226 bytes) (+407)‎ . . (→‎The questionnaire: test save) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:43, 5 December 2015‎ 75.108.94.227 (talk)‎ . . (54,819 bytes) (+14,020)‎ . . (undo)

I just left the edit-summary blank when I first did the initial {{subst:User:GamerPro64/ACE2015_exit_poll}} post onto my own usertalk. Let me know what you want to do. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should hold off for next issue. I'll delete the current draft and then on Sunday, or after the next Signpost drops, I'll be sending the messages. I think that'll be the best plan. GamerPro64 14:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, sounds like a plan. Thanks for your help, and will talk to you later. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is over now, and scrutineers are working their way through the voter-list to make sure everybody is properly enumerated. There has been a suggestion to expand the question-contents, which I tried to formulated as an expansion of q#8, see User_talk:GamerPro64/ACE2015_exit_poll. Gamer, do you have a goal-slash-schedule, for when we send out the questionnaire? We have a little breathing room to work over the questions further, and to finish filling out the list-of-recipients to cover through the end of voting. What are your thoughts on timelines/deadlines, for 1) finalizing the questions, 2) sending out the questionnaires on usertalk, and 3) processing the batches into a reasonably presentable WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-09/Arbitration_report? Also, are there other sections of the ArbReport that may need to be written? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could send the questionnaire later today or tomorrow. Doesn't seem much less to publish this week besides letting people know that the voting period is over. So if we don't have the exit poll done by this issue we can at least do an article on the elections wrapping up. GamerPro64 16:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the people who are GREYED out, are just re-votes, and should not be struck. I have gotten through #111 in the list of participants, or thereabouts, and will check through the rest of them now. Can you and Ryk72 and Samtar please look over the questions, and see if we can make any fixes to them? I've also made an alt-approach-rough-draft, at User_talk:75.108.94.227/arb'15_tiny, which is somewhat more compact. See also the similar-alt-approach at User_talk:75.108.94.227/arb'15_teensy_tiny, which is significantly more compact.

  As with any kind of will-you-please-do-X request, the length will be offputting and some folks will simply not respond. Maybe we should just cut the questions down to bare essentials, with footnotes holding the suggested responses, and let people be open-ended if they prefer? Should we be going for the 'tiny' kind of approach, rather than the nominally-less-biased 'lotsa-enumerated-choices' approach? Or an even more-tiny approach, with no footnotes?

  Also, is it worth mentioning to the recipients that their is no WP:DEADLINE for when they submit their responses, and any time before 2016 is likely to eventually get tabulated into the article by somebody? That of course will increase the TLDR factor. At present we just say "will be published" and nothing more. I'll let you know when I've finished the participant-checks. If we can get some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for the specifics of the questionnaire, I agree that sending them out today (Tuesday the 8th) is a good plan. That will give people three or four days, to submit responses in time for processing-before-publication. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the participant-list is ready. There are 155 people, not counting three who are getting skipped for opt-out or for being at present indisposed (#27 #59 #117). I'm happy to have any of the three question-drafts sent out, or happy to further discuss the optimal way to ask the questions. I will start working on a result-formulation page, to get the table-layout fixed up. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, which one am I sending? GamerPro64 23:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indecisive about that.  :-)   There are four drafts: collapseTop#1, collapseTopMod#2, notelist#3, sansNotelist#4. All four have the same basic set of questions, but in slightly different layouts/formulations. If you want to make a command-decision, I'm happy to let you. If you want to let Ryk72 make a command-decision, that is also fine by me, I trust their judgement.

  The issue is simple. The visually-longest to visually-shortest are: collapseTopMod#2 (v.huge), collapseTop#1 (huge), notelist#3 (big), sansNotelist#4 (medium). Shorter is better, in terms of getting a higher response-percentage: fewer participants scared off by tl;dr. Longer is better, in terms of getting an easier-to-process-and-analyze dataset: less ambiguity for us Signpost folks to manually resolve after-the-fact. Although collapseTopMod#2 is "most-precise least-interpretive" it is very huge and risks giving us too few datapoints... if we can get away with sending medium-sized sansNotelist#4 instead, more people will answer the exit-poll rather than ignore it, and "less-precise-more-interpretive" will end up being just fine since we will have MORE datapoints. We must pick our poison, in other words: too long and we won't get ENOUGH responses, too short and we won't be able to interpret the higher response-rate SENSIBLY.  :-)

  If we cannot decide what to do amongst ourselves (you/me/Ryk/anybodyElseWhoCaresToComment), we could theoretically do a test-run of collapseTopMod#2 against ten people, and a separate test-run of sansNotelist#4 against ten people, but that might take a day or two, and it's already the 9th. So if neither of you wanna make a command-decision, I'll bite the silver bullet and pick one of the four. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to pick my 'druthers, 'd suggest the extended version here with the ordered bit in Your Ordered-List-Of-Letters Answer: removed. The hope is to get sufficient responses that importance of each option can be gauged by the count of responses in which it was selected, rather than qualifying each respondent's answers. I do like the additional questions in the other surveys, but think they might reduce the responses more than they increase the value of the data. Hopefully that makes sense. Please let me know if you would like me to also be sending out questionnaires. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nice command decision.  :-)     Gamer, any objections to that scheme, collapseTop#1-draft with a slight tweak? If not, I suggest that...

• Gamer send out messages to participant#1 thru participant#79 (which is Leglish_vote_ID#1422), and that
• Ryk72 send out messages to participant#80 (which is Cmr08_vote_ID#1440) through participant#158.  Done - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer, give us the go-ahead signal, if you are happy with this plan. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go. GamerPro64 13:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steps for sending out the messages:

1. Verify that the questions are correct: User:GamerPro64/ACE2015_exit_poll. No way to bugfix the prose later, this is a WP:SUBST operation, not a WP:TRANSCLUDE.
2. In a new browser-window, open the participant-list: User_talk:75.108.94.227/exit_poll_possible_participants_list
3. Rightclick a participant's usertalk link, open in a new tab
4. Ctrl tab over to that participant , click New Section
5. Leave the "Subject/headline" blank , paste the following into the big textarea: {{subst:User:GamerPro64/ACE2015_exit_poll}} ~~~~
6. Click save , close the tab
7. Repeat steps three through six , for each participant you are notifying

Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer, this is a reminder about a review you took on a while back. It's for Megami Tensei Gaiden: Last Bible: it opened on 17 November, and has yet to receive anything beyond your initial comment. Just dropping a reminder in case you had forgotten, so the article has a chance of passing. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I remember. I told the nomination I was gonna gonna take my time on this one. Don't worry Proto. I got this. GamerPro64 00:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, while I'm here... is there some kind of fixable bug, so that all comments will show up, when viewing Signpost-pieces? For instance, when I click news-n-notes and scroll to the bottom, I only see one comment, by Carrite (talk) 05:46, 7 December. However, when I manually click add-a-comment, or manually click the talkpage-button, there are several more comments. There is a little note which says, "These comments are automatically transcluded... If your comment has not appeared here, you can purging the cache." And indeed, after I do manually purge the cache, I can see all the comments including Opabinia's upgraded graph, properly transcluded. But is there a way to purge the cache every fifteen minutes or something, automagically? It was something like 21 hours between Carrite's comment and Opabinia's comment, with three other intervening comments. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a purge issue. Not much to fix really besides purge it. GamerPro64 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me how many of these you sent out, and point to where there was community consensus that this spam was OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you done, or are you sending out any more? And if there are still more, and there is no consensus you can point to, will you stop until that consensus is gained? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was 200. Other questions still apply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done sending. The other guy might not. GamerPro64 15:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that answers one question, although saying "the other guy" instead of a name isn't really helpful. Where was there consensus to send these? And new question, which AC Electoral Commissioner helped you develop the list? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other person involved is User:Ryk72, whom I asked to help. We would be happy to halt the outgoing stuff, if Floq wants to open some kind of AN discussion about this, or somesuch. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a community consensus on this and no Commissioner helped. It was an IP address that suggested the idea. GamerPro64 15:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, first, please do not send out 155 messages without some kind of consensus that spamming the message is OK. Second, the message says "Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners". Was that misleading, or did you have help from one of the commissioners? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These questions can be best answered by the IP address as they were the one who set this whole thing up. I didn't really do much here besides the spamming. GamerPro64 15:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically one commissioner helped, User:Guy_Macon, by only by giving us the hardware-random-number-generator info. Another commented briefly, User:Mdann52, about the meaning of the the grey-outs. And although it was my idea to run an exit poll via the signpost, the suggestion originated with one of the arb-candidates, if memory serves. I'll find the thread if anybody actually cares. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Go Phightins! know about this? Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. And now I just realize this was a terrible idea. GamerPro64 15:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not passing judgment on the idea, it just looks like something he should know about ahead of time. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, Go_Phightins is on the list of people being polled, because they happened to vote in a multiple of 18. So they probably know about it, but we didn't clear it with them first. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail sent. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've sent you an email via the "email this user" functionality at 10:13am ET (Wed, 09 Dec 2015 15:13:23 +0000) with answers to the ArbCom election exit poll, for the Signpost. Thank you. Sumana Harihareswara 15:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]