User talk:PresN/Archive 14

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2015
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

GT and FT candidates
Thanks for your contribution at Featured topic candidates/English Heritage properties in Somerset/archive1 which has now been promoted as a good topic. Would you be kind enough to take a look at Featured topic candidates/Scheduled monuments in Somerset/archive1 which is currently nominated for featured topic?&mdash; Rod talk 07:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a question
Hi, PresN. I would not normally write a message on someone's talk page in Wikipedia, but I have a question regarding website references. Should it be that when citing a website, and the website's publisher has the same name as the website, the publisher is the only one to be stated in citations to avoid redundancy? I thought before that citations should have both the website name and the publisher name, even if they are the same, but the editors contributing in Nichijou says otherwise. LionFosset (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - so, there's a few schools of thought on references. Yes, for both websites and print citations, if the publisher has the same (or very similar) name as the work, then don't list the publisher- for example, the New York Times is published by The New York Times Company (I don't know if that's true), so a reference would just have |work=New York Times . The divergence comes from whether or not, for websites, you would list the website as work or publisher- i.e. if Anime News Network would go under |work= or |publisher=. Additionally, there's a split between people who link every instance of an article in the refs or just the first instance- I do all of them, because I can't expect the reader to hunt through the references for the first use, which can also change as the article changes. You'll notice that WP:OVERLINK makes no reference of reference sections; that's because the unofficial policy for reference sections, even at the FA level, is "whatever you want, as long as it's consistent". I don't think it's worth arguing about, though. -- Pres N  13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my question. You really are an awesome Wikipedian. LionFosset (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Notable Square Enix Franchises
Please rework it if you wish. And use whichever manual of style you want. My one or the one of CAS222222221--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:List of notable Square-Enix franchises page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=673861916 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F673861916%7CDraft:List of notable Square-Enix franchises%5D%5D Ask for help])

Notification of a suspicious user at FLC
Hi. Hope you're well. I've noticed the user Dodung2001 voting to support a variety of FL candidates and one FA candidate with two word or less "reviews" []. I don't know if the user is unsure how FLC/FAC works, may benefit from a delegate informing of such or candidates may become unduly tainted. Cowlibob (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've left him a note telling him that he should try to do more substantive reviews so that they don't get discounted. I think he wasn't "suspicious", just didn't know that FLC/FAC uses !votes, emphasis on the '!'. -- Pres N  00:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Suspicious was the wrong word choice maybe. Thanks for giving a message hopefully that sorts that. Cowlibob (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable Square Enix
I feel the article is ready for wikipedia Main space. Please kindly move it, including the history and talk page--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible future article
I've been looking through references and information for Final Fantasy XV nee Versus XIII for the past day or so, and while I was doing a review for Development of The Last of Us, something struck me. As XV and Versus are essentially two entities spanning over ten years from a development standpoint, I thought it might be a good thing to create a separate article for its development history. You know, something like Development of Final Fantasy XV, modelled along the lines of other development history GAs. As it is, the current development section looks a little large and doesn't contain much apart from some general information, and some parts of it still use references pertaining to Versus. It will need a major rewrite and review, but it would be nice to sensibly chart the game's development history. Not anything like the job G-Zay tried to do, of course. And this isn't counting the possibility of postmortems on the game in both its forms after release. This is a very long-term project, so no pressure at all. Just want an opinion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if you can find the sources, that a Development of Final Fantasy XV article would be just fine- like you said, it's a long, complicated development it's gone through, more so than some other games that have "development of" articles. -- Pres N  22:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I was wondering whether you would give a first glance at this draft I've been working on for the article mentioned above. I've also got images and appropriate description/licenses for parts of the article, and a rewrite of the main page's development section for when this article comes into existence. Before anything is said about the use of Final Fantasy fan sites, I have only used them when they are transcripts of verifiable material (such as the Instagram concept art or youtube videos) or original interviews. As to the references from the Final Fantasy XV Forums, they are only used when the cited information comes directly from Tabata rather than being a repost or something. If possible, it would also be nice to get an opinion on when I can properly put this out. Obviously, all this is liable to change before it finally comes into the public space. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is one incredibly in-depth article. I think it's pretty much good to go, as far as it is- I don't think it needs to wait for the game to come out and the development ended. I had a couple thoughts as I read through it: 1) It should probably restate at the beginning of the article body that the name was FFv13 and changed to FF15; right now it's just "After the game’s name and platform change", which hasn't been introduced at that point. 2) The second half of 'announcement' mentions a lot of gaming conventions but not when in the year they are. 3) This is really a ton of development information to be out before the game even has a release date, wow. 4) It seems a bit obvious (to me) that when they made it FF15 they went back and changed chunks of the design not just to remove the FF13 elements but to make it more "mainstream", which is a shame. 5) Hopefully post-release the article won't get too much longer, it's already pretty intense. -- Pres N  01:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Help
After your finished with the notable SE franchises article I would appreciate if you could help with this: Draft:List of JRPG franchises--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted data
I think you accidentally deleted some data from manga section at List of Square Enix franchises? Or did you intend to delete it, if so please explain why?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was on accident- looks like when I reverted the blanking you did it rolled back all the manga edits you had done before it as well. Sorry, didn't realize. That said- even if you mess up a page move, never do a copy-paste move- it's a huge headache to sort out the histmerge stuff. -- Pres N  16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I explained the problem in the talk page. I messed up--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIV
Hey there. I've just finished a major rewrite of Final Fantasy XIV. I was wondering if you could do some proofreading, and offer suggestions on any general improvement before I take it to GA. After doing all that research and writing, I'm a little cross-eyed. Feel free to expand on any information there if you want to. Let's hope we can plug this gap in the released GA/FA mainline Final Fantasy games! --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * can do! -- Pres N  20:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, copyedit done! I think it's more than good enough for GA; for FA the things that stood out to me were that development probably needs a more in-depth copyedit that I gave it; there were some snakey sentences that probably could use some rewriting/re-flowing; also, the release section goes on about all the post-release changes made because of poor reception, but it's placed before the reception section itself. I'd consider splitting it into "release" and "post-release", with reception sandwiched in the middle. Probably not a requirement, though, and certainly not at the GA level. -- Pres N  20:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. I'm taking a bit of a break from GA/FA work at the moment, but I'll probably get to thise when my break ends. I've also taken your suggestion about the release and later development into account, and made suitable adjustments. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, it was an instant pass at GA. We've plugged the gap! --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * awesome! Great job on that one. Do you want to make an FTC nomination? -- Pres N  01:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, I guess we can't unless Final Fantasy XV has a peer review of some sort- do you want to post one, or should I? -- Pres N  02:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got other stuff I want to do now. You can do as you see fit with the article now. But I was nice to work on it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm giving up on doing Reception charts in video game articles
Well, ProtoDrake and Pres, I feel like it's getting to the point where I can't make Reception charts for video game articles anymore, all because of 81.158.229.85. He claims that I should only use multi-platform Reception charts to "fill in ALL of the platform review scores and NEVER leave any of them blank." And now he claims that I should use multi-platform boxes only "for the ones that have been released on 4 or less console platforms" and only use Standard Reception charts that "helps works when it's likes 5 to 10 console ports because it makes the reception section less of a hassle and more of an entertaining read." I tried arguing with him, telling him that using stanard Reception charts on 5-10 platforms is too much and "makes the Reception charts too tall and ruins the flow of game articles", but he never listens. Instead, he always creates multi-platform Reception charts for only less than four console versions like in Fight Club (video game), but always makes single Reception charts for over four or more (up to ten) console versions on Need for Speed: Underground, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Need for Speed: Underground 2. But in trying to correct the Reception chart, the guy always makes Reception chart too thin in Need for Speed Underground; replaces Famitsu's scores with Edge's dead link in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory; and removes GameRankings' mobile score in Need for Speed Underground 2. I keep correcting the mistakes the guy has made. Isn't that enough? What am I supposed to do? If 81.x only gets his way, and if that is the case, then I may never do Reception charts on video game articles anymore. I feel so sad, and I feel like giving up and crying. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my response for more info. 81.158.229.85 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Long lede
"I really don't think we need to split up a 4-paragraph lead into 3 different sections"

I disagree. The lede of an article should be short, not an article in itself. This lede is too long. Some of the material needs to be removed from the lede and put in the body; this is done by addition of section headings. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * two points: one, lists (Hugo Award for Best Related Work) are usually treated a little differently than regular articles, since they only have a spurt of text at the beginning and then one or more big tables; as such the "lede" is more of an intro than a summary of the article/list. Two, there are 16 lists on the different Hugo categories, all featured (and therefore reviewed by several experienced editors) and all with the four paragraph lede Related Work has- "category description"/"category history"/"how do the Hugos work in regards to this category"/"summary statistics". I'd prefer, if we're going to change the lede here, to make a change that is clean and works for all 16 lists if possible so as to keep them consistent. (In addition to the Hugos, I have the same pattern going on for the Nebulas, World Fantasy Awards, and a few smaller ones, so I'd like to keep a solid paradigm going.) I could see moving the summary stats paragraph down to the table- it's pretty long here (as opposed to e.g. Hugo Award for Best Fancast), but I'm not keen on moving the last two paras down since, as you noted, they don't fit together like that so you end up with clunky one-paragraph sections. Maybe move down the middle two paragraphs together and head it as "History and process"? -- Pres N  20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I was making an edit that I thought made the article read better. As a general concept, I think that the lede of an article should be short, with the details in the body.  But I'm not so glued to this particular edit to spend a lot of time rewriting every single awards article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification – September 2015
Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that Nebula Award for Best Novella – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rare table help
O table master, do you have any ideas on how to make the table in Rare Replay less hideous? It takes up so much vertical room as is, for such a skinny table. Is there some way (or is it worth) making it multi-column? Would it be worth floating it on the right alongside the text? Or should I be looking at expanding the table into telling a bit about each game? – czar   04:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it'd work fine as a two-three-four column list... it's just a title and a year, a table is probably overkill? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Expanding the table is one option- adding a column with a short description of the game would likely fix your problem. For another option, see the edit I just made- the timeline's getting pushed down by the infobox since there's no lead, but otherwise it fits neatly on the side of gameplay. -- Pres N  13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice! I think the timeline's a great idea. Didn't even cross my mind. And the short lede should be addressed soon enough. Appreciate your help, – czar   15:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I use this as a source
Can this be used as a source on wikipedia for sales data. http://akurasu.net/wiki/Super_Robot_Wars/Sales_Data it uses wikimedia software but no one can edit the website but the admin. So I see it just like an uneditable website. I cant find compiled data like this anywhere else :(--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No; the problem isn't the wiki format, the problem is that it's some random person on the internet publishing the information, so the website doesn't reach the level of a reliable source. Try to find where on Geimin they're pulling the source numbers from. -- Pres N  01:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How do i do that? I tried entering the numbers into search box, Nothing came up.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I got the data by typing スーパーロボット大戦 in the middle search box. but its not a static page, i got http://geimin.net/da/db/ruikei_fa/index.php is there a way to save a link of the page i can see. so that others can guy on a link and see it as well? Update: what i meant to say is that a search query doesnt change the url--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This source seems fine: 「スーパーロボット大戦」シリーズ累計出荷本数1,600万本突破. 第1作のHDリメイク版がPS Storeで販売開始 (The Super Robot Wars series shipped over 16 million copies overall. The HD Reamke version of the first title start to be released in PS Store). --CAS222222221 (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/York City F.C./addition2
Hi, I see you supported the York City F.C. FTC 1st supplementary nomination way back when. I was hoping you might be interested in taking a look at the new supplementary nomination. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Help
The contents column is not getting ordered when i click it. Can you please tell me how I got about fixing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_JRPG_franchises Or can you please fix it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pay attention to what you put in the sort template- columns sort by alphanumeric, so "1" sorts before "10" by default; this is why in the Square Enix rows, I had 4 games - so that it would sort as "04", not "4", and therefore be counted as less than "40". I see a lot of rows where you have things like 2 games, which defeats the purpose of the template. If you have rows that aren't sorting in the correct order, check the sort template to make sure you have them set up right. -- Pres N  04:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

THanks, I can fix this--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)/archive1
Will this ever pass? It has been over 35 days. It got five support in its first week, and still no one has looked at it. All the comments were resolved long ago. Still i don't see it happening. Krish |  Talk  14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Review trade
I remember you saying that if someone reviewed Children of Mana you would do a trade review. JimmyBlackwing and I nominated Maniac Mansion to FAC and I'm wondering you're able to review it. GamerPro64 15:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Well, save it up, and spring it on me when I least expect it." - I'll review it soon! -- Pres N  16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just pinging in case you forgot. If you haven't had any time to write a review that's fine. GamerPro64  20:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Square Enix video game franchises, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Darius and Arcade. 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) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oscar winners markup and accessibility
Hi there,

Thisisnotatest has brought up a concern about the markup of winners in the Oscar ceremony articles at 87th Academy Awards featured list nomination. He or she has a concern that unknown IP users will ruin the accessibility portion by marking the winners solely with bold text. I currently use double dagger to mark the winners, but the more recent lists often are reverted back (and I don't want to start an edit war). Can you give advice on what can be done to solve this problem? I propose using both the bold text and dagger for markup. I don't want to be canvassing. I just want help on how to be consistent on marking up winners that pleases everyone.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Nergaal thinks I need to make every song which has an article on Merry Christmas II You, but you don't necessarily. Only think is, Mariah would probably only have about one paragraph about her out of each of those articles, and some of them have been covered by tens of artists, so I don't know what to do about it. — Calvin999 07:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * neither of us is anything official at FTC, so whatever opinion we give is just our opinion; I'd recommend pinging the FTC directors in that thread to see what they say about it. Nergaal is right that other album topics have all the songs listed, but none of them are holiday albums with covers of classic songs, so this topic would be setting precedent a bit whichever way it goes. -- Pres N  14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The FTC delegate said that wouldn't have thought the others would appear in the topic. — Calvin999  14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with removal of ogre battle
Square Enix owns ogre battle see: http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=482160 If they did not own it how could they trademark the logo? Please consider this and consider reinstating it to the list--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the reversion?
Specifically, referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seiken_Densetsu_3&oldid=prev&diff=684025840

The version prior to my edit had inconsistent paragraph usage- some characters had paragraphs of their own, whereas others seemed to be missing the paragraph breaks necessary to distinguish them, with no reason for them to be contained in the same text block as another character.

Try actually reading what it was I was editing, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirRaven (talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I know what you were editing, since I wrote the current revision of the article, including that section. The 6 characters are split up into 3 paragraphs of 2 each, with each pair connected by the story. It could be better, but it's better than a list of 6 bullet points (with or without the bullets). We could have a discussion about what formatting looks better/works better, try to find a better way... except that it's a bit odd, isn't it, someone jumping in to make that exact change to an article about a 20-year old game today... and on September 18, September 10, August 25, April 28, March 21, February 20, December 28, November 22, October 27... each time with a different IP address, or a new/inactive red account. No other edits to the article, often no other edits anywhere, just the same little switch, slid in there. Logging into this account after 3 years to make that exact same edit... kind of a duck. -- Pres N  03:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I've been using this account for ten years now. Do you seriously think anybody thinks that section of article is significant enough to warrant a concerted effort across multiple accounts to repeatedly vandalise the thing?

I ran across the section of article in question whilst looking through some old fan translations I grew up playing, and thought it looked extremely sloppy. I can only assume that the fact that multiple other people have come across it over the past year and made a similar edit is a sign that I'm not alone in that assessment, and wanting to be a good samaritan and clean up what looks like a minor typographical error. While I understand what you were trying to do in grouping the storylines together, the structure of the section straight-up up looks like someone just deleted a few line breaks- the thing even reads like it. There's no obvious link between the characters within each paragraph as the piece reads- if anything, in its current format, it actively hinders the process of looking up information for specific characters.

I suspect that the other edits you leapt on and reverted over the previous year had the same kind of thoughts as I did- anybody looking up the description of one of the characters that's listed second in any of the groupings has to stop and scan through the paragraph within what at first glance reads like a list to find what they're looking for, thanks to the counterintuitive structuring. The difference, it seems, is that I noticed the instant reversion of what I assumed was a minor edit, and its flagging as Vandalism- combined with a kneejerk labelling of me as part of some kind of nefarious six month long conspiracy to wage war on a minor section of an obscure twenty year old video game's article.

I find your reaction so remarkably petty that I recall just why I spend so little time editing articles on this site. Perhaps, rather than assigning blame to multiple users over a six month period, consider whether the fault might perhaps instead lie with the article itself.

AirRaven (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I apologize for accusing you and being so rude. There are odd petty conspiracies on Wikipedia- there's one guy who's spent the past 2 years trying to change the credits on Final Fantasy games to associate the producers he likes with the games he likes while marginalizing producers he doesn't like- but in this case I'm seeing something that isn't there. I've restored your version of the section; I still don't like having a semi-list there, but it's not worth having a fight about and I can't think of another way to make the prose smoother. -- Pres N  13:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! 2

 * wow, that's some pretty strange timing- I had no idea, it was just the first series of similarly-named articles that caught my eyes in the "B" stubs after Backyard Football and Actua Sports. -- Pres N  05:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I picked out the template from category for video game navboxes by series and bumped into 1 sentence stubs... Heh. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cricket (series) might be another one to poke at merging all those cricket video games. --Izno (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2015
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nebula Awards FL
Hey there, I thought you might want a heads up as I think the Nebula Awards FL for Best Script/Dramatic Presentation is incomplete. I'm looking at a copy of the A history of the Hugo, Nebula, and International Fantasy Awards from openlibrary.org (excellent resource and free) and from a quick spot check it lists nine nominees for 1975, whereas the FL only has three. I only realised as I was trying to disprove Gene Roddenberry's claim of winning a Nebula for the original Star Trek series (which I did) but then discovered he was nominated for The Questor Tapes in 1975 - but that wasn't on the FL. I'll be done with the book in a minute (only one person can loan it from openlibrary at a time) and then you'll be able to read it online yourself. Miyagawa (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, that was the initial ballot, not the final one which is correct and on the FL. Ignore me! :) Miyagawa (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— Calvin999 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

EverQuest expansions
Hi PresN, and thanks for combining the stubs into this article. One note, our license does require attribution when copying text from one article to another. If you can list out the stubs that you merged into here, I can do all that paperwork. Thanks! Crow Caw  19:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put a list on the article's talk page, if you really want to formalize it into a template. -- Pres N  19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The license is kind of funky in its requirements. Attribution has to be noted "at least where regular authors are attributed" which for our purposes means in the edit history. So the listing on the talk page is good, but I may need to make a ton of null edits to add attribution to the edit summary. Seems kind of random, but that's what CC wants. I see you do this sort of merge a lot, so in future if you could attribute as you add, I would appreciate it. Something to the effect of "Content copied from Source article, see that page for attribution." Thanks again! Crow  Caw  20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is. All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. , a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to. Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
 * wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

, and  18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Closure
Hello, would it be possible for you to close this FLRC please? Since the FLRC was opened, no progress has been made to the article, and four editors including myself are motioning for the article to be delisted, the last of which was made on October 26. Thanks,  Azealia 911  talk  21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it will be closed when one of the delegates gets to it, probably within the next few days. It is obviously ready to be closed, but it takes a bit of time to actually do the work of closing. -- Pres N  21:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought you were one of the delegates? Apologies if I'm wrong.  Azealia 911  talk  21:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am; delegates close nominations (FLC or FLRC) when they have the time, not when they are asked to. In any case the point is moot, as Giants2008 seems to have closed the FLRC while you were asking me. -- Pres N  22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Video Games Rewrite
Hey,

I appreciate that you want to improve the article, and I certainly have no problem with that. When I originally wrote those introductory sections, it was part of a planned scheme to get the whole thing to FA status, which I abandoned. Therefore, I never got around to sourcing it or refining the language. There is absolutely stuff that could be trimmed or rewritten, but none of it is original research; I just never added the sources used. Please feel free to tweak to your heart's content.

Unfortunately, your rewrite was problematic, so I reverted it. As the top level video game history article, this needs to actually tell the story of video games, not just be a random list of games. That would like writing a History of France article that was just a narrative list of heads of state that gives names and years of rule and nothing more. That does not make for a good article. There are plenty of general histories of video games (Phoenix, The Video Game Explosion, The Ultimate History of Video Games, All Your Base Are Belong to Us, Replay, etc.), and while all of them have accuracy issues, there is more than enough good info between them to tell a good narrative history of the video game on Wikipedia. That should be your starting point, not a randomly chosen list of 1950s and 1960s computer games, many of which are not individually important or notable.

I really don't mind if you change every last word I wrote: this is not an ownership or entitlement issue. However, please be sure to write an actual history based on what the secondary literature deems important rather than a random list of games. Also, you need to do a bit more research, because I noticed a few errors in your text, which I would be happy to discuss with you (the current version has a couple small errors as well, certainly not claiming perfection on my part). Let me know if I can be of help. Indrian (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a few points in response:
 * To start with, I do agree that the history articles should be prose rather than lists of games. The change I made was list-y because it was a summary-style cutdown of Early history of video games, which was itself expanded recently (by me) out of an actual list. Both Early history and today's small version could both use a lot of improvement, prosewise.
 * That said, the initial reason I made the change is still valid- that section of History of video games is long. Like, half an article long, with another 5 sections after it. Given that, for that time period, there's an existing article at Early history of video games, it really should be shorter, with a more in-depth discussion at the child article.
 * That probably means that the Histovg section should be shortened, and a lot of the current text integrated into Earlyhovg, rather than what I did, though Histovg is missing citations.
 * I do have a few problems with the narrative presented by your version; for one, it conflates early hardware-based games (like Bertie the Brain, Nimrod) with early non-visual software games (like Alan Turing's chess program). It loses the narrative of the "pieces" of a video game getting made separately- Bertie coming up with a computer "game" with visuals, OXO coming up with a software-based game with a visual output that wasn't lightbulbs (a program on a computer, not a single-purpose computer), various chess/draughts programs pulling together increasingly complex software programming for games (without visuals), culminating with Spacewar! as a software-based, relatively complex game with visuals on a screen. Even your version is just a list of games through the 50s, with a bunch of attention paid attention to Tennis for Two solely because it was used in patent lawsuits later than because it was innovative.
 * Oh, and the section headers don't match up- you have the top header as 1950-70, but include the 70-72 stuff under it. I think it would all fit together better if the article had a cutoff after the Spacewar subsection and had the "Commercialization of video games" as its own top-level section for the next two subsections; then, "Early history of video games" would only be the child article for the 50s-60s, not the Odyssey/Pong stuff it barely touches. If that's fine with you, I could then try to fix the narrative flow of the 50s/60s stuff in both articles and get them in sync.
 * That all said, what errors did you see in my version? There's probably several; you certainly know more about the topic than I do, my work is an outreach of expanding the crummy stubs on the very earliest game articles, not on the history of the time period as a whole. -- Pres N  00:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I agree with many of the problems you articulate, which are largely the result of me abandoning the work mid-stream.  It IS too long and definitely needs a good trim.  The heading should be 1950-72; I would have to look in the article history to see if it's my typo or someone changed it later.  I chose to focus on Tennis for Two because most of the secondary literature singles it out, not because I think it's super important for being involved in a patent dispute.


 * One thing I strongly disagree on, however, is your characterization of early games as providing different "pieces" that culminated in Spacewar. All the games of the 1950s were isolated programming experiments with features dictated by the hardware that was available.  No one built on the work of previous programmers, because they were not exposed to each other's work.  The only exceptions are in chess, where more sophisticated programs were built after examining older programs, and checkers, where historian B.J. Copeland claims Arthur Samuel was inspired by Strachey's program, which Strachey showed at a conference in Canada (and which, incidentally, featured graphics, perhaps even before OXO [they were both completed in 1952, but I don't know which was finished first]).  Spacewar was not inspired by any existing games and was actually preceded by a pool program at the University of Michigan that featured complex physics and real-time graphics in 1954.  Spacewar was the first game to truly influence other significant programs, however, and therefore is ground zero in the development of the video game as a medium.  Earlier games don't really fit into a comfortable technology narrative.  If a narrative were to be constructed around them (and I certainly agree that my version did not), it would be better to group them around their purposes, which were generally AI research (checkers, chess, etc.), gaining public support for computing through demos (Bertie, Nimrod, MIDSAC pool, etc.), or education/training (hutspiel, Carmonette, and the various business simulations).  Tennis for Two is an outlier in this scheme, because while it was essentially a public demo, it was created solely as an entertainment piece rather than to showcase a particular hardware (like Bertie) or programming principles generally (like Nimrod).


 * Once again, I fully support cleaning up and reorganizing my incomplete draft, I just think we need a slightly different approach. Indrian (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/November 26, 2015
PresN, I see that you've noticed already, but for consistency's sake: a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? Btw ... you did a wonderful job on the lead, I found nothing to change (other than getting the summary below 1150 chars). - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

... and today your "first FA about an iPhone game", Infinity Blade! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XV
Hi, PresN. I've been thinking about getting Final Fantasy XV up to at least GA or FA status sometime soon when it is released in 2016. Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't really looked at the article too much, but I'm pretty sure is on top of that article; he seems like he'll have that article + the development article at GAN within a couple weeks of release (slight exaggeration, but not much). -- Pres  N  05:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. I just hope (maybe in some future fan questionnaire or something like that) that Tabata/Square Enix will clarify where XV stands in terms of whether it's still officially part of FNC. Ever since that blasted GameSpot article came out... The least they could have done was use a quote. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Infinity Blade TFA nomination
FYI, I have nominated the Infinity Blade, an article you have significantly contributed to, for TFA: Today's featured article/requests sst✈discuss 05:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Fine Young Capitalists/GA1
PresN, you recently contributed a second opinion that indicated you felt there were issues with this nomination. The original reviewer has just withdrawn from continuing the review; I was wondering whether you would consider taking over the review. If not, we will put out the call for a new reviewer, but I'm hoping you can continue and complete it. Please post on the review page if you can; otherwise, I'll check here for your reply. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pres. I just want to say thank you for taking the helm for reviewing the article. Really helped out with the nomination. GamerPro64 17:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - no problem, no point letting a nomination fail because of the reviewer, rather than the nominator. -- Pres N  18:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A question
Hey, PresN. Since most of the articles within Fabula Nova Crystallis are FA/GA, or will soon become them, and after seeing your comments on the FTC for the Final Fantasy series, I need some consultation concerning the series in general. I'm planning on creating an FT from Fabula Nova Crystallis, but do I need to include all the articles related to the included games (characters and music), or just the games themselves? Even then, I don't know whether to include games like Type-0 HD or not. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a bit of a mess. There's basically two issues, both unofficial rules at FTC- one, there's a general consensus that if you have a topic that's for example 3 games and a character article, and you try to nominate a topic of just the games, you'll get shot down since you're only missing one article. The other issue is that while unreleased games don't need to be GA, no one's ever tried to have a topic with a pair of articles for an unreleased game- the FF15 development article.
 * It seems like you want to have a topic that has FNC as the lead, then FF13, Type-0, Agito, and FF15 in the body, leaving out Type-0 HD, Type-0 online, type-0 characters, and FF15 development? So:


 * I think you could make the argument that this is a self-contained topic, and that a future "FF Type-0" subtopic would be Type-0, Type-0 HD, Type-0 online, and characters of Type-0. And if we ever get confirmation that FF15 isn't an FNC title it could be dropped, of course. I don't think you could have a topic that's like the above but with just one of the Type-0 spinoffs added, without adding both of them, and then you'd be on shaky ground to not include the characters article. -- Pres N  17:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Eugh! Sounds like a messy issue, but then so was something like getting Tales articles to GA. Also, for clarification, my plan was to do this after Type-0 Online and XV had gotten above GA/FA, with other peripheral articles upped to those levels as well just to be on the safe side. Still, this can wait for a long time. By the way, on XV-FNC connection front, there has been no other official word of any kind, and I'm quite sure (whatever others might say) that fan sites and gleeful reporters would have jumped on that like lions on an antelope, with resultant articles about the "dirge pf FNC" or "Square's failed experiment" (I'm sure you've seen that kind of thing on sites across the gaming spectrum). If anything, considering what other information was given at Pax Prime, it's likely that it was a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if you are going to wait for Online to be a GA, then you could do:


 * Then, by specifically calling it "FNC titles", and pulling in the FF13 games from the subtopic, you might be able to avoid having the characters and development article included. If you wanted to get all the articles GA+, then you could just do the big:


 * Optionally splitting the FF type-0 subarticles off into their own topic (it's a little hazy whether Agito is a subarticle of Type-0). I think any of the topic box options I've made here could be nominated, it's just up to you which articles you want to be GA+ before nominating. -- Pres N  17:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. And I think Agito stands as its own game, though related to Type-0. Type-0 Online is technically an evolution of the concepts pioneered in Agito: it's the developers' way of keeping Agito alive in a sense. In any case, thanks. This has been very helpful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Recyling of WFAs
It is true, however, it occurred to me after your revert that there may not be a "source" Wikipedia-style since that may not be public knowledge. --Pleasantville (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd expect you'd know. I'm going to re-add it as non-contentious, and if anyone complains about it later it can be removed again. -- Pres N  19:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Early history of video games
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Early history of video games you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


 Jim Car ter  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Allow others to flood your page with seasonal greetings because Christmas is coming...  Jim Car ter  12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Early history of video games
The article Early history of video games you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Early history of video games for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

FLC: List of awards and nominations received by Wolfmother
I don't understand how the quality of the candidate is at fault for its failure. It has one reviewer who supported it, there are no reviewers who oppose. In the pursuit of a better WP, we should be judging articles on their merits against the openly displayed criteria. This appears not to be happening here.

In related to its failure, you state: "remember that the easiest way to get people to review your nomination is to review several other nominations first".


 * 1) Could you point to the specific FLC where such a sentiment is mandated, described or even implied? Each article should be judged on it merits not on the contribution history of its nominator(s).
 * 2) There is no indication of how the article, itself, could be improved. There is no effort made to supply "critical comments in relation to the criteria". Where does an editor of the article go from here to make it better if all the critical comments have been resolved?
 * 3) I've done a couple of reviews here, I tend to restrict myself to Australian music related articles due to my familiarity with that field. Looking at the current set of candidates I am not confident that I am "sufficiently familiar with the subject matter" of any of them to provide appropriate critical commentary on such content. How can I "review several other nominations" – in a reasonable amount of time – prior to renominating this failed FLC?
 * 4) You're implying that I should just go ahead, review FLCs, provide comments and get my sig recognised. Then when I come back with this list it is more likely to be supported.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the poor Christmas present. :(
 * For a list to pass FLC, it needs several people to agree that it meets the criteria. While the director/delegates have a rough idea of how much support a list needs, there is no set number of people; that said, it's always going to have to be more than one- that's a hallmark of all of the "Featured" processes on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we also can't let nominations stay open indefinitely- the longer the page gets, the less likely any one nomination is to be reviewed, and the more likely reviewer fatigue is; as a result, there's an unofficial cutoff of 2 months unless there's ongoing discussion. This does mean that sometimes lists that could theoretically be promoted don't make it on that pass because not enough people have checked it over in time. It's entirely possible that your list is perfectly good to be promoted; I haven't reviewed it so I don't know. The mechanism by which we determine that is multiple reviewers agreeing, though, as there's no objective way to make that determination- if there was, the process would be a lot faster.
 * There is no rule that you must review other nominations, officially or unofficially. That said, if 30 editors nominate lists and none of them review any, all 30 lists will fail. The only way the process works is if everyone who participates as a nominator also participates as a reviewer. Reviewing other people's lists doesn't need to involve "getting your signature out there" (though it's perfectly acceptable to directly ask people to consider reviewing your list back, as long as you're leaving legitimate reviews, and some people do tend to review lists by people they recognize), but what it does mean is an overall increase in the number of reviews out there, meaning that someone who would have reviewed the list you hit might instead review your list. A rising tide lifts all boats, and all that.
 * I understand that you prefer to review Australian music lists, but that's a pretty small niche; if your potential reviews held to that standard your lists will never be reviewed enough. Non-Australian music lists are pretty much the same as Australian ones, just with different spelling sometimes, and honestly the only way to get familiarity with non-music lists is to jump into them- I promise that any flaws you see in a nominated non-music list are not in your head, and are probably actionable issues. We can't all be experts in every field, but we can still review grammar and structure. -- Pres N  01:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bertie the Brain
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bertie the Brain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

FLC
Please do whatever is consciously right according to you for this, ASAP. As its been two months now and I don't want my nomination to reach 2016. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bertie the Brain
The article Bertie the Brain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bertie the Brain for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Holiday message
Already given you a beer once this year but I'm giving a cheers for another year for the project. Hope to see you and everyone else next year. GamerPro64 06:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers for another year for you too! -- Pres N  14:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

AB FLC
After going through your closing comments, I must say I was appalled by your thoughts (towards me). "Vensatry got pretty harsh in their review, at times crossing the line into condescending or paternalistic. It's a little much, and I think the reason behind it is that sometimes you're not as clear when you ask for something as you think you are, and you get angry that the nominator doesn't understand you because you think they're just avoiding the issue." I do wish you would see both sides of the coin before you threw baseless accusations at me – Firstly, I don't think the nominator failed to understand my point. Besides, I gave clear explanations for every single point on why the list was not "well written", yet you claim that I was unclear. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 07:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that what I wrote upset you. What was unclear was what you wanted done for the lead. What you wrote about it was:
 * "I don't think the lead adequately summarises his film career." - in a review that mentioned specific bits of time in his career that were missing from the lead, but nothing about the overall lead.
 * "It's not a problem of coverage alone, the lead needs a complete re-write." - after the nom asked what you meant by the first comment.
 * When the nom asked what you meant by "a complete re-write", you told him (after some back and forth) "If my comment doesn't make sense to you, why bother about it?".
 * Another back and forth where the nom clearly didn't get what you meant, and you replied "Doesn't it look like a 'proper explanation'?".


 * That was a conversation that took place over a week, December 4-11. At no point in it did you explain that what you meant by "the lead needs a complete re-write" was "the lead is currently just a bare listing of roles he's been in, and should instead discuss the overall shape of his career." You only did so on December 13, in your second review. That's what I meant by unclear. And I did "see both sides of the coin" - please read the very next sentence, and the following paragraph, where I discuss the nominator, and why his attitude likely made you spend a week making annoyed comments instead of explaining what you meant.


 * You're a very good reviewer, but it's starting to become obvious (to me) that there are a few editors in the Indian film scene that you don't much care for, and you seem to be pretty annoyed when reviewing their lists- this isn't the first nomination that you looked to me to be slightly hostile towards the nom. -- Pres N  15:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I was not invited to take part in the review. I happened to chance upon it (the topic certainly being my area of interest) and I had a look before leaving a couple of queries asking for clarification from the nominator. This was during the first week of November. I was unable to offer a full review at that time as my time here was limited. Neither did I oppose when I got to this the first time around. That said, I wish you had done a little more research before judging my actions. The nominator was blatantly accusing me for not returning to his candidate. It all started from here. So I was kinda forced to review the list. This time, I did have a look and because I felt it was not up to the mark, I had to oppose. You might want to compare the various versions of the list (starting from the time it was nominated till its promotion). As you can see in my penultimate review, I made clear that new problems arose whenever the nominator tried to address the existing ones. However, I did clarify my stance (on why the lead was not "well-written") in my later re-visits. I still don't think the lead adequately summarises his career. So you cannot tell that I failed to support my standpoint. Lastly, there are no deadlines for reviewers. They can return only when they have time. As for your last point, I know whom you're talking about. You gotta examine their behaviour in first place, not mine as they have a history of problems, even outside the FLC process. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 08:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)