Talk:Jeff Gerstmann

Gaming champion?

Rich Gallup often makes allusions to various gaming competitions Jeff won in his youth, and he also seems to be somewhat of a fighting game expert. One might assume this is how he got involved with games journalism in the first place. Does anyone have any specific details of what he might have won that they can add with citations? Monkeyhousetim 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any citations, but I know that he recieved an NFL Blitz '99 arcade machine for winning a tournament at E3 in May of, I think, 1999. He also participated in an Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 ladder at a local Scandia. I don't remember where he finished, but it wasn't in the top three. --LoneStranger 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why do/how can people hate this guy so much to repetedly vandalize the page? Yee Gods. Scoutersig 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the recent Twilight Princess review.

More or less, he gave a less-than-perfect review for Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess on GameSpot. The local Internet Tough Guys decided vandalizing Wikipedia would be sufficient revenge, I guess. Ledneh 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a message to everybody who wants to vandalize this page for Jeff giving Twilight Princess an 8.8: Grow up. Seriously. Just because he didn't like the Wii's control setup doesn't mean he's unqualified to review it. And he gave Ocanaria of Time a 10, from what I hear. There is no cabal. Stop whining. Please. ferrarimanf355 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree ferrariman, but saying stuff like move out of your parent's basement is just stupid and juvenile, and is kind of bringing yourself to their level.

"Less than perfect" is quite an overstatement. Let's just say he opened a can of worms. Saitou 02:52

ferrariman, I wouldn't think that vandals look at the talk pages. Corban321 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good statement. IF you Read Greg Kasavin's blog, he explains why the score was justified and that the GameCube Version of this game will most likely be awarded with a higher score. So chill out! ~SOMEGUY~

The fact that they even had to "defend" their review shows malicious intent. They should have merely said it was Gerstfatty's opinion and that's that, but instead they use that Kasavin guy's blog to crap all over the entire Zelda series. This can only mean that the intent of the "suspiciously near-perfect" review was malice toward the Zelda fanbase, with a healthy dose of hits from other fanboys, gamer cynicism at its best. It is furthermore difficult to seriously consider most Wii game reviews from the man considering Gerstlump seems resistant to exercise. He seems to only wish to be passively immersed in games, and any game that requires him to be actively immersed he'll not like because his blood sugar might drop. This is not a case of him not liking one particular game. Gerstmanwich seems to not like the entire platform, and that is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse. Why is it that only the complaining masses are branded with the fanboyism stick while a self-evident bloatwaffle gets to review games that might get him a little exercise? But you are right, it is just one man's opinion. Although, he is so large he might count for 2. -Demetrius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.10.7.115 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

he gave a terrible review, he basically docked it points for being "too zelda". This guy doesn't deserve a computer.

That sure as hell isn't neutral. Just because you're unhappy about his review (*cough* fanboyism *cough*), it doesn't make it fact. Torte 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages do not have to be neutral. It didn't look like he was planning on adding that to the article to me, at least. 66.167.39.79 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, just being on the safe side of things. If s/he wasn't planning on adding it then it's all good. Torte 12:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Did someone take off the mention of the Twilight Princess review? I thought that was a pretty notable incident.--Goodface87 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that incident should have a mention, because it did stir up controversy. Jsding 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So I have finally looked upon Jeff's new rating. I dare say it is just one man's opinion. Though the game does initially deserve 9.0+. The man just didn't feel up for grabs when he played the game. Perhaps Zelda Love has been replaced by Gears of War? Leave his so called biased opinions to himself. I myself thought the review for the wii version was nearly justified; However, the GameCube version should have recieved a higher score and an editor's choice medal, yet it didn't? Oh well... ~SOMEGUY~

He gave Ocarina Of Time a 10 out of 10, 'nuff said to disprove him not being neutral.

Not so. He may be neutral towards the Zelda franchise, but he is quite obviously biased against the Wii's control set-up with the game. Reviewers should be unbiased against both game and platform. Quite essentially at the core, he was saying that Zelda was getting a lower score because it was on the Wii. That's bias, through and through. --Sturmwehr 07:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A crappy control setup (in his opinion) is a perfectly valid reason to dock points from a game. 198.161.51.2 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you actually watch the review on Twilight Princess, Jeff is basically praising the game and only says that the controls and audio could have been done better. I have no idea how someone could understand his 8.8 (great) to be a lousy and biased review. Not mentioning about negative things would have meant that he is biased and unreliable as a reviewer. --91.152.192.37 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider Mentioning Review???

I'd like to open an honest conversation on whether the Twilight Princess review should even be mentioned on this page at all. Frankly, it's hardly a defining moment in his career, and on an article so short we should flesh it out before we add something like this.

Besides, it's a non-issue - the man gave the score an 8.8 (it also won Gamespot's "Wii Game of the Year" award). Few games score as high as 8.8 and Gerstmann plainly liked the game. But games like Resident Evil 4 have raised the bar for third-person adventure and Zelda games have changed little since Ocarina of Time.

The Zelda fanboys are essentially getting mad at Gerstmann for giving a great score to a great, but hardly mind-blowing, game. Think before you speak, people. EDIT: Never mind. This is old news.203.131.167.26 11:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't believe this is an issue that should be mentioned. For one, this is just fans of the game who are unhappy that Twilight Princess didn't get a 9.6 (which is ridiculous since 8.8 is a good score, seeing as how many other games would be praised for receiving such a score). He's essentially being chastised for having an opinion that's not as gratuitous as others. Like the person said above, this is so old and minor that people seem to have already cooled down and forgotten about it, which indicates that it is an non-issue blown out of proportion by Gamespot forumers. Besides that, if people want to know about Gamespot's review score, go find the Twilight Princess Wiki article. Omex 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you and a handful of other people disagree with the review hardly justifies calling it a controversy. Mentioning the review in this context basically opens the door to nitpick every review he has done that someone disagrees with.

If he's a video game reviewer by trade and one of his reviews is controversial, which his was at the time, then it ought to warrant a mention. It wasn't just a handful of people who disagreed, there were hundreds and hundreds of posts criticising and discussing the review, and other Gamespot writers stood up for him. Within the world of Gamespot and Gerstmann I'd say it was a noteworthy event, not nitpicking. The previously existing paragraph was perfectly reasonable, it's a pity somebody got rid of it.

THere are hundreds and hundreds of posts about many different topics in the world of Gamespot. that, however, does not make them worthy, as there is no way to attribute any of it to a reliable source. If anything, this is relevant to the article on Twilight Princess. The supposed "controversy" was really about the game itself, and not the man who reviewed it.

You're ruling out this topic because there are forum posts about other subjects? Mentioning the controversy isn't just about the forum posts, they were a manifestation of widespread unhappiness with the review. I don't know about sources, but I do know that in its way it was pretty significant at the time. I don't think the controversy was supposed, as you say, it was very real, and it wasn't about the game itself, it was squarely about the review and the person who wrote that review, and that person is the subject of this wikipedia entry. It probably is worth a mention in the Twilight Princess article too.

most of this article is unattributed.

Just saying that something is significant does not make it significant. Are you going to make an article about every single forum topic? 'Widespread unhappiness' is such a vague term that has no real meaning. There is no way to verify outside of your own memory that this 'controversy' ever existed.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, but it was significant. It wasn't originally mentioned on this page on a whim. I wasn't that worried about the review itself, but I was interested in the controversy generated. You can't make a article about every forum topic, I'm not sure why you're caught up on this idea. This isn't making an article about a forum topic, it's mentioning forum topics in an already existing article, which is a bit different. This topic has been mentioned on this entry and this discussion page by lots of different people, I'm pretty sure we didn't just imagine it all...Even those who disagree with the nature of the controversy acknowledge that it took place.

If you could site even one reference from a reputable source, it would be different. As it is, there is no reasonable way to show that there was any genuine controversy.

There was a citation in the most recent revision, a page of posts and a blog from a Gamespot staffer saying that things had gotten out of hand. That should be enough.

Gerstmann has been reviewing games for 10+ years. This one event is so insignificant in the scope of his entire career. It just seems a little silly to make such a big deal out of it.

As I argued earlier, if a game reviewer does a controversial game review, it should be considered worth mentioning. Before the citation it was allegedly something we all made up, now the argument is that it's just not worth mentioning. It seems some are intent on censoring this incident out of existence. I don't intend mentioning this to cast a cloud over his career, of course it hasn't, I think he's a good reviewer. Put in a mention of how many games he's reviewed if you think that will balance things within the article.

I still don't think that a personal blog is a reliable source. Matt Rorie writing about something in his personal blog is a far cry from Gamespot acknowledging it as an organization. Rorie even states specifically 'I wasn't writing with the thought that I was representing GameSpot as a whole'. I don't think that you are trying to degrade his reviewing style or his conduct over 10 years. I just think that in the scope of his entire career, this single 'event' is just a drop in the bucket. I personally don't think that a small amount of web chatter, however vitriolic it might be, is something that is worth mentioning outside of the Twilight Princess article.

If Gamespot had come out and acknowledged the controversy, it would be one thing. But they chose not to, because apparently, it wasn't important enough to mention. Jeff didn't to my knowledge make any kind of statement about the controversy, because I guess he didn't think it was important enough either. MAtt Rorie made a statement about the controversy, but I don't think he really counts. It was just his personal opinion, and from that citation, you could make a better case for a controversy against Rorie rather that Gerstmann. THis article is short enough anyways. If you didn't know better, you might think that the TP review was a defining career moment. Totallybananas 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How many times has there been a scandal or disaster (especially in politics) whose controversies have gone unmentioned? Many. Remember when 50 Cent said "George Bush hates black people" on live national TV after Katrina? Do you remember Bush saying anything about it... Nope. I guess that wasn't controversial, even though it obviously was.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.229.180 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

I don't think Gamespot were ever really that likely to come out and say "A ton of people disagreed with our review and are calling us biased", they disagreed with that view and weren't going to give those disgruntled people any more of a voice. Gamespot's acknowledgement or otherwise of the controversy is neither here nor there when it comes to deciding whether to mention it in this article. The use of Rorie's blog as a citation was merely to prove that there was some controversy that took place, as some seemed to be questioning whether the whole thing had been made up. I don't know what you mean about making a case about Rorie. I don't think article length has anything to do with whether we should mention this or not. As I said earlier, balance it out with a mention of how many thousands of games he's reviewed and how he's a respected member of the Gamespot crew if you like, but I still think there isn't a good enough reason to pretend that there was no controversy, it's really not relevant whether the site itself referred to it or not. For instance, you're not going to get a government saying "we did this thing wrong and a load of people disagreed with us over it", but that does not mean that that did not happen.

Suspect Reviewing Technique?

There are several YouTube videos of Jeff Gerstmann playing Wii games while sitting down, particularly Wii Sports. The fact that other Gamespot staff have were standing up during the review might indicate and inclination of bias on Mr. Gerstmann's part, if only his resistance to fun. Another note is that the Wii is a more active console than most and he appears to be either too lazy or perhaps too embarrassed to be more active on camera. Please observe the Youtube video of him playing Wii Bowling and notice how he sits down and side-arms the controller as if that were accurate and complains that it is not. The resistance to at least try to play the games fully should be considered as coloring his opinions. -Concerned Wikpedia User.

That's called a "conspiracy theory". I've also noticed that he wears darker colors while playing Wii games, indicating his complete lack of objectivity. His overuse of harsh-sounding consonants like "Z" and "K" to add negativity to Wii reviews is also a warning sign.203.131.167.26 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's because he's extremely fat, making it hard to stand or move around a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.184.74 (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Infant.128.187.0.164 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspective?

By the tone and information in this wiki page, I get the impression that he wrote it HIMSELF. It's too informal and biased towards him and contains little "quirks" that nobody would know except him and nobody cares about except him.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.148.148.42 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

I think that the updates are made by his fans. There are a lot of young folk who would love to have his job writing about video games and look up to him. I think it's pretty evident if you visit some of the Gamespot forums. --LoneStranger 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia:Fancruft..;) – Dreadstar † 19:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At least they are trying. :-) Steve Dufour 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Kane & Lynch

Once more information comes to light, information should be added on this topic. Until then, refrain from speculation.

I really fail to see why the controversy is not mentioned. We don't know, so we shut up? Sorry, but that does not make sense. Wikipedia is not a place to start rumours, but the controversy over this rumour already EXISTS. It is real, and alive. Cf: the real world, thousands of blogs and famous webcomics. We should never mention theories when they are only speculation? Way to go. Information will not come to light, and you know it. Eidos will shut up about it (as they are locking the thread of their forums. long life freedom of expression), and few people from GS will be in their own interest to say anything. It's not like getting a paid job to play games is an easy thing to get, you know. Jeff himself is probably better off letting the whole stuff die and get another job with his fairly famous name in the field.

Not mentioning it and hoping people will forget (which they will, let's be honest) is a best disingenuous. More realistically, it is something i won't say to stay polite, but that would involve lots of swear words.

I am not saying you are some stupid *** from Eidos trying to lock the thread. But if they wanted to do it, they wouldn't do it any differently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.145.71.208 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 November 2007

Wikipedia is intended to be a source for well-established information. If anyone wants to add information from reputable news sources like Wired, who do have an article on this issue, that would be perfectly acceptable. Adding in rumours because you feel "the truth needs to get out" or something like that is not encyclopedic. I agree that it's important to discuss issues like this, but an encyclopedia is not the place to do so. Draglikepull 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Utterly absurd. While it may not be appropriate to post the controversy as fact, you can bet your behind that controversy is, by this point, well established. It should be included, and I think the argument against is laughably stupid. 24.235.231.138 06:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't matter if you think it's stupid, or what anyone thinks. You have every right to talk about these issues, vent frustrations, boycott gamespot, and try to change the editorial system. All that's being said is that *this* is not the right website to do it. Wikipedia is not a blog or forum, nor does it cite them. It is not a news site (although there is a wikinews site in addition to wikipedia) and does not care about having the information "first." What wikipedia cares about is being a good encyclopedia, backed up by Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, not including original research, [[1]], and respecting the rights of living human beings by adhering to [[2]]. Until a source that has its own respected editorial board to verify information it receives from credible sources releases something, it cannot be put into an article. Stupid or not, that's just how wikipedia works, and is the simple reason why it can be compared to the Encyclopedia Brittanica in terms of reliability. 129.61.46.16 14:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed the part with the link to Valleymag supposedly speaking of his confirmation. The thing is that there was no confirmation there that I could see, just him saying he can't comment on any rumors surrounding his termination. I can't say that's confirmation, just that he can't comment. I was expecting something akin to "Yes, I was fired, but can't say anything more than that at the moment". — Northgrove 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue for me. I've been a defender of JG since the Twilight Princess review, which put him in the minority of critics unwilling to appease fanboys with a perfect score (though it wouldn't be fair for me to implicate others for giving perfect scores). This Kane and Lynch thing, though - I was angry at GameSpot after reading the review, which I felt was fair and an unbiased description of gameplay. I could see them firing him because of the video review, though. He should have just read the print review, but his video review was just vitriolic. It sounds more like a friend complaining about a movie than a critic pointing out strengths and flaws. If he'd given the game a lower score ("fair" still implies some redeeming features). It's still within his right of expression, but I think the video review could have used a couple more takes.71.35.252.65 18:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot's new manager of community development says that official word on the issue will be released Tuesday based on this forum post. Not worth adding, but a way that we should be able to tell faux information from legit when that announcement is released. --MASEM 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit completely wiped all but Jeff being terminated from the article. Mind you, one paragraph was based on the info from a so-called "insider" at Gamespot, and thus, as is, should be a rumor and removed per WP policy. However, there is sufficient verifiable and notable sources that are there to help deny the initial rumors (which must be stated if only to give credence to CNET's quote about not bowing to external pressure); as such, this version is not rumor-mongering that can considered to be a problem, particularly for bios of living people. I see a similar edit to remove this issue from Gamespots page was also made, claiming "flash in the pan", but that's being speculative but just as much as saying this is likely a bigger issue. The news deserves mention with reliable sources on this (Jeff)'s page, but does not need volumes written about it, yet. If nothing else happens, then what is presently on the page is a sufficient summary of his dismissal, end of story. If there's a lot more, we can expand on it on this page, linking into it from Gamespot/CNET's page as needed, but again, we have no idea if this is needed either. I do agree, though, spamming the story across 5 articles (here, Gamespot, CNET, Eidos, and K&L) is not appropriate, and as this page is the smallest of the 5 , this makes the most sense to describe the issue if it grows any further. --MASEM 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't post rumours, however widely published they are. Doing so runs the risk of violating WP:BLP - remember, Gamespot and Eidos can sue. Will ^(talk) 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm just as outraged as most people. But I keep my opinions out of the article space and most of them off of Wikipedia. Will ^(talk) 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we don't do that, but please note that the key fact (CNET's statement about not bowing to external pressure) loses all context without mentioning, sourced through other sites, what prompted that statement. Of course, Gamespot tomorrow may clearly state all the reasons and address the initial rumors in their own language, which then would be a much much better source for talking about the issue. --MASEM 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gamestop has responded: [3], fully denying the rumors. I've added stuff back in. --MASEM 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You should at least mention that at the time of his termination; His video review of Kane and Lynch was also removed, furthering rumors about the termination...since that is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.45.131 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I agree with Spectre on what's being stated here. Now that we have both CNET and Gamespot's comment (and if Eidos has one, that may be useful), that "closes" the issue of Jeff's terminatation. There may be a larger story at play, the integrity of online video game review sites, which this will lead off into, but at the present, there is not enough information to determine the notability of this aspect. This story may die this week, it may expand into something huge, but WP is not a crystal ball. All these issues of support for Gerstmann and negative feedback towards Gamespot is overstepping the issue - it's newsworthy (wikinews) but not noteworthy (wikipedia). Let's wait to see if this issue needs to be expanded. further. --MASEM 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

More information has been put (and should stay) on the page. This is no longer simple daily news and does not belong on wikinews. The incident and its implications (reporting credibility) that it deserves its own section. Masem/Sceptre, you guys need to understand that. Wiping my edits and removing my citations (and it is well cited), simply defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Toadstool1969 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP is not a news report. Gerstmann being fired and the (lack of) reasons why are, are notable aspects of Gerstmann. The fact that there's backlash at GameSpot and Eidos, and several opinion pieces questioning reviewing integrity, however, is still news, none that directly applies to Gerstmann, nor has its long-term notability yet to be demonstrated. If this is a huge issue with major ramifications, then likely there will be a separate article to outline the details, but they should not be home in Gerstmann's article. On the other hand, if this passes over, there's no need to go into all the subissues (like Penny Arcade or rallys to support Gerstmann) since they were non-issues. In either case, this information will not be needed in this article. Again, news is not always noteworthy for purposes of WP. --MASEM 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Masem, the point of recording this incident is not to bash GameSpot and/or Eidos or show any sort of "backlash". The point is to record an incident that is important to Jeff Gerstmann. Being laid off from a position of 11 years is noteworthly and belongs on this page. Further, the events that surround this incident are not only newsworthy but also noteworthy. This is not extraneous detail -- just appropriate detail. --Toadstool1969 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It does. But not a whole section. Two lines. "Jeff was fired. People speculated that it was to do with a review. Gamespot said it wasn't". That's enough detail. Any more biases the article. Will ^(talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we're protecting Eidos or Gamespot for what they've done. They have commited the biggest controversy in gaming journalism history and deserve to be called out on it. It's not a rumor anymore. Sites like Kotaku and GamePolitics are quoted as reliable sources in other articles, why do the rules not apply here? It's not a WP:BLP issue, because I can't find the part of that policy that says "We don't add factual info that might make major companies cry." Maybe we should add the fact that even though this is supposedly crying over spilt milk, CNET is launching an investigation into this incident? How about the people picketing? How about "Blackout Monday"? None of those things are very important though, but some things are, such as the fact that all Gamespot staff members have added ominous blog entries. But right, Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. ShadowUltra (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What the text that is being added is more along the lines of a coatrack article - trying to justify Gerstmann's departure but instead fronting anti-Eidos/Gamestop issues, even if sourced. Furthermore, while Gerstmann's firing may be the issue that starts some "integrity in video game journalism", those issues, including the rally of support for Gerstmann , do not belong in Gerstmann's article - it technically really ought to be added Video game journalism - but again, this is a newsworthy issue (it's a current event) but not noteworthy (it's impact on the industry is yet unknown - it may be huge, it may be nothing). We need to take a sit-and-wait stance to figure out where things end up going. --MASEM 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument, there. Nessie, Bigfoot and UFOs are rumours, yes, but they have demonstrated long term notability and actual public interest, including academic papers and government interest, because they are rumours. People have also written books about JFK's assassination and 9/11. Not the case with Gerstmann. It's just one opinioniated website's view projected onto 50. Will ^(talk) 12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe the crap I'm hearing. First, Masem, no one is "trying to justify Gerstmann's departure but instead fronting anti-Eidos/Gamestop issues". Just exactly where did you get that idea? I'd really like to hear your explanation. The text I put up was simply clear and referenced information (available from a number of sources). This is a summary of events (albeit recent) that are important to (1) Jeff Gerstmann and (2) the Video Game industry. As they are important to Jeff Gerstmann, they should be summarized with the proper detail. You've stripped the detail to the point that the summary is practically meaningless. Nice job, Masem.

And, Sceptre, I'm tired of playing footsies with you. We both broke the 3RR but I'll let you have your way. I'm sure you feel justified in removing my text. But, your argument that this is "one opinioniated website's view projected onto 50" is utter nonsense. The citations I included described various events related to the Jeff Gerstmann's departure. Particularly the responses to his departure, and I mean people's actions -- not opinions, should have remained on the site. Hope you feel good about yourself for stripping a necessary level of detail.

Where do you guys get off telling me to read the WP:BLP? I've read it. I didn't break NPOV, Verifiability, or original research. The fact that Ziff-Davis and 1Up picketed is verifiable. The fact that Penny Arcade wrote and editorial and drew a comic is verifiable. The fact that GameSpot forums sprung up after the event is verifiable. Give me a break.

Nice to see you two adding such amazing 'value' to Wikipedia.--Toadstool1969 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, Masem, thanks for this note to Sceptre:

Please note that I have issued a formal 3RR violation for Toadstool1969 over this article. Do note that I have explained that you've done as many reverts now as he, but by the BLP stipulation/allowance, I'm pretty sure you're in the clear about it. --MASEM 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That message was sent to Sceptre after you sent this one to me:

On the Jeff Gerstmann article be aware you have violated the Three-revert rule for doing more than 3 reverts to a single article in a 24-hr period. As you have not received a warning to such, and I'd rather resolve what we can via talk pages, I want make sure you are aware of the rule so that you don't stumble into again and we can work out what information should go where.

Change your mind about the 3RR? Feel like you need to protect Sceptre? Or, simply repress the truth that should have been on the Jeff Gerstmann page in the first place? I am still confounded by your efforts to remove this information.--Toadstool1969 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you reverted after both Spectre and I dropped a warning on your page (and several minutes after both warnings so you should have had time to seen it), and you did not use this talk page to work out the issues before reverting again. That is a WP:3RR violation. I told Spectre of what I did because I also cited him in the same 3RR violation and for having done 4 reverts, though he was reverting appropriately under the BLP situation for qualified reverts; he should be aware that he was being "reported" as well.

I am not trying to hide information. However, WP for BLPs has to take a very careful edge about what is reported about such people. Anything that can be seen in a negative light for living people can be used as the basis of a fraudulent claim case against WP, and thus BLPs must be carefully edited. To that end, as of yesterday, the absolute confirmed information was that Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot, and both CNET and Gamespot has stated the decision was not due to external advertising present as rumors had stated. That is all we know at this time that is directly related to Gerstmann. Now, the stuff about rallys and blackouts and Penny Arcade and all, while Gerstmann's firing is what started all this, does not directly involve Gerstmann in any way. To go into excess detail (which is heavily anti-Eidos/Gamespot/CNET primarily due to lack of strong input from their side) on Gerstmann's page is not appropriate.

This additional information does not belong on Gerstmann's page. This is not to say that this information does not belong on Wikipedia.

Where this information about the post-Gerstmann fallout should go I'm not sure yet, but definitely not on Gerstmann's page. Part of the problem is that this is still an ongoing news story - while Gamespot/CNET have stated their place, there's still developing rumors that imply this issue is not yet over. If this is really large, I would make it a sub-page from video game journalism most likely. The only example I know to work from is the Church of England's controversy over Resistance: Fall of Man, where all the of legal/news issues are reported on the R:FOM page. Here, it would make the K&L game page the one to start from, but since that the K&L issue appears to be a minor issue of the whole thing, it doesn't logically follow. Placing it on Gamespot/CNET/Eidos' pages approaches the potential issue of BLP problems (yes, I know there's no BLP for commercial companies, but I think it logically follows that if we have BLP for people for legal reasons, we do the same for companies). This means that the obvious solution is to make a new page - what name, I'm not sure, but this would be a logical place that then, we can link from all affected articles to.

However, again, I do caution with what a similar discussion on Gamespot's talk page - this is presently "news" and not "notable". The story is still developing. We don't have all the facts. We can completely conclude Gerstmann's role in the story, but as to what this means for Gamespot, CNET, Eidos, and others, is yet unknown. The best advice here is to be patient and wait for more details about the story to come about. We will tell what has happened, but we don't have to be on-the-minute: we are not a news source. --MASEM 20:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, YOU CANNOT SPECULATE THE ACTIONS OR INTENTIONS OF AN OPERATING COMPANY OR LIVING PERSON. Your reversion included two instances where such speculation was unsourced. Out of your "correctly sourced" information, in the first paragraph, one was a webcomic (as in, the .png file - I mean, we're still waiting for the American McGee adaptation of Strawberry Shortcake), and one sources Youtube (and the video uploader says "Apparently"). The second paragraph is a cutpaste of press statements. The third is just unneeded coatracking, which cites again, a POV piece from a webcomic and a union that was apparently created twenty months ago and is just as heavily POV. The only really useful, non-deriving statements not in the article are the citations for the review score and the 1up.com protest. Will ^(talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Toadstool, by asking your fellow editors "where they get off" you are breaching codes of civility on Wikipedia. Read WP:CIVIL and chill out a little.--Beaker342 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1UP and Ziff Davis staff members picketed over an unconfirmed rumor. Penny-Arcade reacted to this same rumor. Gamespot forums acted up by the same rumor. From the official story, the dismissal of Gerstmann is unrelated to the relations between Gamespot and Eidos, if there was any. --BirdKr (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We could say that the rumour caused them to do so, but the 1up.com thing is borderline. Will ^(talk) 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some one needs to fix this.

Could someone please fix all the swearing on his page? I didn't think anyone would have the time to do all that. Moenbro 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WE <3 YOU JEFF!