User talk:Shooterwalker

Interest in GA reviews
Hello there! I hope you're doing well :D Look, i currently have two GA nominees in stand by: Cybermorph and BattleSphere (P.S., i previously asked Tarkus if he was interested but he is currently busy with the VG Characters project, which is understandable). If you're interested in reviewing them then let me know :) Have a great day! Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't say no to such a polite ask. I'll try to get to it soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello there! How're you doing? Look, are you interested in reviewing Attack of the Mutant Penguins? :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can find some time for this in the next week. As a heads up, editing your earlier messages makes things a little confusing. Would you mind reverting them, just to keep track of the good work at BattleSphere, and make the conversation easier to follow? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure! No problem :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. We'll continue our good work at the GA nomination. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello there! How're you doing? Look, i recently nominated another Atari Jaguar article so i'm letting you know if you're interested in reviewing it: Checkered Flag. Take care! Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. You're doing a lot of good work and I'll try to get to it, once I'm done reviewing another GA on my plate. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello there and happy new year! Hey, i don't know if you're interested but i have White Men Can't Jump (video game) for the Jaguar nominated to be a potential GA so if you're interested, that one is open for reviewing. I also plan to take Ruiner Pinball to GA in the future so keep an eye on that one too. Have a nice day :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't say no to another polite ask like that, and it's been a while since the last one. Look for comments from me in the coming days. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey there! I hope you're doing well. I have nominated Ruiner Pinball as a potential GA but i also nominated Power Drive Rally as well. So take which one interest you the most :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take a shot at it. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, i hope you're doing well! Sorry if i'm bothering you in case you're busy but i nominated Tempest 3000 to be a potential GA. It's a game for the Nuon instead of a Jaguar game and a follow-up to Tempest 2000 so if you're interested in reviewing it, then let me know. Thanks and have a good day :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi! I've been more busy than usual, but I'm going to try to review this one. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello there and happy weekend! Hey, i recently nomianted Missile Command 3D for Atari Jaguar to be a potential GA so if you're interested, then let me know :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can find some time for this. Look for something within the week. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello there and happy sunday! Hey, i plan taking this Bethesda game article called Protector for the Atari Jaguar to be a potential GA in the future. This is also a somewhat significant article as it was released in the same year the Jaguar was declared open platform by Hasbro Interactive. Let me know if you're interested in it :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty busy in June. But let me know when you get around to it. I'll see if I can find time. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That works for me, as i want to do other articles in June. I'll get around to it in July (probably) when you're less busy :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello there! How've you been? Look, i plan to nominate Protector to be a potential GA so if you're interested then let me know :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm super busy through this month, but should find things getting more comfortable during August. Thanks for checking in. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Toys for Bob
I've heard on the WP:DISCORD that Toys for Bob is expected to be shut down amidst Activision layoffs. You are probably already aware of this, but it may be worth keeping an eye on the article as stuff unfolds to ensure the FA doesn't degrade. Panini! • 🥪 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It appears that the people on Twitter did not double-check if they were right and it was blown out of proportion. Toys for Bob will still be around. Panini!  • 🥪 05:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It takes a lot to completely eliminate a studio. But it's definitely crappy news. There will be more interesting news to come from this merger for sure. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

uhh, why?
You reverted Special:Diff/1227496266. The linked article has much more content, is about the same topic, and is likely to be mistaken for this page. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's unprecedented to promote an essay at the top of another essay. That's what the "related essays" section is for. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, all this essay does is quote SIGCOV, with only perhaps one additional sentence of expounding. Meanwhile, the other essay is much more popular and detailed while the redirect is likely to mistake people into quoting that essay instead. Linking potentially confusable essays on top has precedent. For example, WP:1S, which was my second random click in the navbox, has it. What is unprecedented is having a section only for related essays and nothing else "See also"s contain. Come to think about it, I don't exactly see what purpose this essay serves, nor a reason why this essay should stay... Could you expound on that? Currently it just seems like a restatement that doesn't makes things clearer. Sorry if I sound aggressive, that's not the intent and I often have trouble with tone in my writing. It's just that I was confused by the essay's placement and feel like it's a bit of a detriment towards navigating. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The essay is already linked to the other essay. Neither of them are binding on how we edit Wikipedia, so it doesn't matter that much. But since you asked, a longer essay is usually stuffed with more opinions and speculation, while a clear restatement of a guideline is more likely to represent Wikipedia policy. I'll always prefer directing editors to something clear, concise, and accurate. But again, neither essay is binding. And rather than arguing about which essay should be more prominent, I'd encourage you to work on articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION&redirect=no Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)