Talk:Goozex

Height of games
An editor has added "In 2007, it is estimated that if the games traded on the site throughout were piled one on top of the other, the resulting stack would measure 2,132 feet, more than 450 feet taller than Taipei 101" back to the article. I removed it previously as I felt the sentence was arbitrary and un-encyclopedic. The statement is conjecture, even if made by goozex staff. Furthermore, there is no reliably 3rd party reference. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The site said further in the forum post, "It is an estimate, but the majority of goozex trades is the width of a console and jewel case. That is the range we used, and not the thick 2 inch 1996 PC boxes.  I feel we were conservative with our width. Couple the volume of trades with the 14.2 million points exchanged and it gives an idea of how wonderful you all made 2007!" They put some time into this number and didn't just pull it out of thin air. As for the third party source, as it is with many smaller private companies, they don't have to give out any data on how well they're doing. We should take what we can get. The stat is interesting and grabs the reader's attention (which is why I nominated it as a DYK hook) If this didn't come directly from the owner, I'd say get rid of it but it did come from the site's owner and I don't think anyone would know better than him. --Michael Greiner 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you insist on it's inclusion, you should explicity state in the article "It is the estimation of the owner of that site that if the games traded on the site throughout were piled one on top of the other..." and so on. I understand you are using this to illustrate the growth of the site, but keeping this line is tenuous at best. I suggest finding additional third party sources help support your claim. Thanks! AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does and has said estimated. --Michael Greiner 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what I mean is "it is estimated" vs "it is the estimation of the owner of the site" AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

HUH?
So this article was considered interesting enough to be cited in today's "Did You Know . . ?" section, while it's also considered a "Candidate for Speedy Deletion?" Someone's the south end of a northbound horse. Cranston Lamont (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CSD tags were added by an IP with a history of disruptive editing. I would remove, but I wrote the article. --Michael Greiner 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the tags. It appears the ip had a single purpose in mind as he also tagged all images for this article as copyvio. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gametz's article has had a similar past, with multiple bad faith AFD noms. I can't really say I am surprised. --Michael Greiner 00:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on
The article is sourced well enough to easily pass both WP:WEB and WP:NOTE. I believe the article is written in the most neutral way possible. Article is currently a did you know featured on the front page. --Michael Greiner 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goozex. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104010940/http://www.bbb.org/washington-dc-eastern-pa/business-reviews/video-games-dealers/goozex-in-college-park-md-221115285/ to http://www.bbb.org/washington-dc-eastern-pa/business-reviews/video-games-dealers/goozex-in-college-park-md-221115285/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517112557/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-17-2009%2F0005078765&EDATE= to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-17-2009%2F0005078765&EDATE=

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)