User talk:Someone another/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, Someone another, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Deserted island → Desert island
Thanks for your comment. Can we possibly move your opinion to Deserted island? -- Kleinzach 01:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A pleasure, and done.Someone another 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi, I just noticed you added the sarcastic gamers AfD to the videogames list. Just as a request, could you make your edit summories when doing that a little clearer? I couldn't quite get what you did just from the edit summary. Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, sorry. I try hard not to edit without summaries, rattling through, but if they're not readable then of course it defeats the object. :/ Someone another (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I make some pretty obscure edit summaries myself too at times. Sometimes I have to be reminded that what's readable for me, doesn't mean comprehensible for another. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The video game barnstar
Thank you, that was a very kind gesture, I'll try to keep it up. :) Someone another (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested Changes
Hi, I made the changes you requested to President Forever 2008 + Primaries. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Thanks for your help! Blandish (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that the changes have been made, is this still a stub article? How do you get a GA ranking? Blandish (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there Blandish. Currently the article is still a stub, before I'd personally upgrade it to a start rating there needs to be some hole-filling and rewriting, it still doesn't resemble a basic article outline. Good Article status is achieved when an uninvolved editor checks the article against a set of standards, and the article is upgraded to their specification. However, there need to be several secondary sources available for an article to reach GA status, regardless of anything else. There's just enough cites to prevent the article from being deleted under our notability guideline, but certainly not enough for GA. I'd hold that thought for now.

What the article needs is the following sections:

The lead. This is the chunk of text that goes before any subheadings, it should be one or two paragraphs, it's the lead's job to summarize the rest of the article and basically tell the reader what the subject of the article is. A reader completely unfamiliar with the subject should be able to walk away with an understanding of the game without reading anything except the lead. It's a 'quick reference', in effect. The lead is difficult to build until the article is fairly complete since a lot of it is a summary.

The next heading should be 'gameplay', which does what it says on the tin, and in most game articles no sub-headings are needed, PF2008 is no different. It should give the reader an understanding of what goes on during play without going into excessive detail. What is the aim of the game? What does the player do? All those subheadings need to be collapsed into paragraphs like this, though there are too many different terms used and it needs bringing down to flowing prose (like this, basically).

'Development' should contain details about how, why and when the game was developed. This information needs citing, as do all aspects of the article. If a reliable source of information isn't supplying the information it shouldn't be in the article. Development is an important part of a video game article, though details on development are not necessarily available, depends on the game.

'Reception' needs to contain how the game was received by secondary sources (IE reviews/previews/features) which are reliable. Virtually every game (unless there are exceptional circumstances, and these aren't) needs one of these if it's to ascend the ratings. It would be advisable to let me handle this, to maintain neutrality.

Sources are king. Reliable secondary sources (like the game tunnel review) not only establish notability, it's preferable to use them to reference as much as possible. Any gaps need to be filled in with primary sources (in this case it would be Theoryspark's own documentation).

And there you have it. To top it off, the images used in the article are waaay too big, we need to keep image sizes down. The text needs rewriting anyway but there are some terms in there which you wouldn't expect normally. I'll try to help you fix these things.

I think there's more than enough there for you digest in one sitting, let me know what you think and I'll try my best to help you hammer out a decent article.Someone another (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Someone another. This is phenominal information and I'll put it to practice as I rewrite the gameplay section.  You certainly have invested a lot of time into this, which I really appreciate.  No wonder you got the star. I noticed you removed it entire gameplay section for now and I'm wondering how you want me to handle the rewritten gameplay stuff once I'm done. Should I modify the article, or provide it to you to review first?  Thanks again for your help. Blandish (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of the page, I noticed why you removed the gamplay section. I originally got that info from the Media package that theoryspark put together, which I would have assumed was designed for public use. It seems theoryspark just recently did a copy and paste from the media info to the web-page. Blandish (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, sorry for the assumption, at that point in time the article wasn't quite looking as I'd expected, after clocking the similarities between the two texts I copied some over and compared it in the editspace. After seeing some of it was word for word I thought it best to just take it out and start again. The problem with it is that we don't just copy text or slightly alter it and present it as original work, we're supposed to take sources and express them in a way that's neutral, not too detailed or vague etc. etc. It's difficult to get your head around at first, there's a hell of a lot of information to take in about how articles are written here.
 * I'm certainly struggling with wrapping my head around all this. :) It often seems my ideas of good articles are far from what actually is one. Getting better though. Once I'm through all this, I may just consider a career in journalism. :) Blandish (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking at the sources available coupled with the less than ideal material from TheorySpark, I must admit that the article is probably focused on the wrong game. The original President Forever has a GameSpot review and an article in the... Washington Post, I think it is, as well as some other sources (I think Game Tunnel reviewed it as well). Those are infinitely better at establishing notability and providing good material to create an article from. There's so little material between the two articles we have on PF2008 that I'm struggling to write anything for it. What I'm planning on doing is starting an article here in my namespace (IE just my little corner of Wikipedia here, not the encyclopedia proper) on President Forever. It'd be a lot easier to show you the general sort of material and writing style that way, it'd result in a much better article and some PF2008+primaries detail could be included there in a separate section. I'll get started in the next couple of days when I get a minute. Someone another (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've re-written the whole game-play section so be in a more prose style. I haven't change the article because I'm not sure if you'd like to read it first before I change it or if I should just go ahead and add the stuff. Let me know what you'd like to do. I do like your idea of changing it more to a President Forever series, or something more general like "Political Games Forever series" which would include all the countries.  It would be a little harder to write for all countries as the whole election process changes so dramatically for the different countries, but that might not even come into play with the actual article as it may not go into that much detail. Basic principles still remain.  I know there are also a bunch of sources for the canadian game. I found articls of CBS partnering with the company and also having a televised interview with the owner. So I can also start looking at preparing a more general article. If you want, I can make any changes to the page you were planning on creating instead of the live page. Blandish (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need to wait for approval, be bold, if it's a stab in the right direction it can always be tweaked. Someone another (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Added the new detail. Thanks for your help as always. Blandish (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You.
Thank you for your assistance in the matter of the Yoshi's Story article. We had reached a huge deadlock due Punctured_Bicycle's actions, and, as we said in the Discussion page, neither side responded maturely. However, we appreciate your moderation during this time. We had been working on the Yoshi's Story page for weeks and simply couldn't watch Punctured_Bicycle delete all our work.

The account EliotAndrews actually represents a number of individuals that log in and contribute to articles, and Yoshi's Story was our latest project. (As Wikipedia share its pages with its users, we share this account in a similar manner.) When Punctured_Bicycle continued to delete our work in spite, we were greatly offended. Therefore, we appreciate the guidance you've provided.

We hope to create a neutral version of the page, but we are adamant in our stand that the work is accurate. (After all, most of us here lived through that "era" in Nintendo's history as teenagers; We witnessed everything unfold firsthand.) We don't want to "protect" the page as much as we want to craft it into the most acceptable version. We would very much like people to read it to understand, not to be offended. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common theme, particularly with Nintendo-related articles. However, with your support, we would very much like to bring peace to the issue.

Thanks again for your help. - EliotAndrews (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Life saver
Hello Someone Another. That statement's now been reinstated and referenced. Thanks for the spot!!! Ashnard Talk  Contribs  10:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-english reviews
La Repubblica did a news article on their main page for President Forever 2008 + Primaries and I'm curious how to handle something like this. I could use the google-translator to get excerpts. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers! Blandish (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Blandish, there is a way of citing non-english language sources but I've no idea how. I've looked at WP:CITE and some other documents but they're not giving me any clues. I'd suggest having a look through the help files and consulting the village pump if all else fails. Sorry I can't be of any further use. Someoneanother 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

flash games
Hi. i just saw your extremely helpful note at the deletion discussion re Flashtrek. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. your sugegstion is especially helpful coming from someone who clearly wants to adhere to clear Wikipedia standards, yet is willing to suggest positive ways to meet standards and yet to include further content. thanks so much. your comment shows a lot of openness. this is what Wikipedia is all about. i look forward to further discussions. please feel free to add any further comments, ideas, etc, anytime. thanks. (By the way, I noted your great suggestion re the Jays GAmes site, and have already done so and submitted a suggestion.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Steve. I'm glad it was of some use, there are other sites out there who might be worth trying such as Gamezebo, though most are dealing with the casual market (IE download 1hr trial of arcade/puzzle games with nice graphics, then buy), they may be open to reviewing flash games, always worth a try. There are also blogs, some of which can be reliable. I just found this one whilst looking for more sources about a game called Skyrates, which has literally just been reviewed by John Bardinelli on Jay is Games. That particular blog ^ is requesting info from developers so perhaps you could try them in terms of Flash Trek?


 * It may sound strange, but I don't view AFDs etc. as necessitating negativity, I just wish that WP was more robust in the way notability is presented, it's great that anyone could come in and edit but seeing so many (inappropriate) articles being removed after someone's contributed to them irritates the life out of me. The solution isn't to just keep them if the sources aren't there though, it's to try and prevent time being spent on them in the first place. Nobody, except the developer, is only bothered about a single game, there are so many out there which need coverage and that's where contributors should be encouraged to go. My actual gaming time is spent almost exclusively on Dynasty Warriors etc., Age of Empires 2 & 3 and RuneScape, none of which I edit because there are other articles which need a lot more help.


 * I look forward to further discussions with you, if there's anything you'd like a second pair of eyes on, some sources looking for etc. drop me a line. Someoneanother 16:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Video game types
I think this would be a really useful article by now. Serious games, Casual games, Advergames and so on. I have no clue where to find references. But there does seem to be SOME common sense about what constitutes a type, versus a genre. Either way, I think it would be helpful to have a parallel article to the video game genres article. Actually, the Video_game_genres section is very close to what we need, IMO. Anyway, I know you're busy with other stuff. But do what you can, whenever you can. (PS: I gave Vehicle simulation game some work.) 65.95.156.135 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will, unfortunately being on WP is like being in 'Satan's luxury dessert-testing room' armed with a large spoon, there's always another wobbly treat with chocolate source sauce (unintentional error, seriously) demanding attention. Thanks very much for your work on the vehicle sim article and happy new year! Someoneanother 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

VG AFDs
"Added January 21st AFDs" - shouldn't that have been "Added January 22nd AFDs"? - X201 (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But of course! XD Thanks for the heads up :) Someoneanother 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/George A. Romero's Living Dead series characters
I've responded to your comment on this deletion discussion. The gist of it is that I think it's better to start again if necessary, and removing this 78kb hunk will not hurt our coverage of Romero. --Tony Sidaway —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guide
... "as well as a rock-solid 'how to write videogame articles guide',"...

Let's write one. User:Krator (t c) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to commit to writing something right now, I'm struggling to find the time and inclination to have much to do with WP at the minute. I would like to at some point, a guide which cuts through WP's own jargon and the more er.. academically able language which clouds things for those of us not of the academic persuasion. Someoneanother 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tower defense
You made a recent edit in which you removed the sentence I reinstated: Popular examples of the genre include:. This removal does not seem to improve the sense of the article while your edit summary was unsatisfactory in not indicating this removal. What is the problem/issue with this please? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that I'd removed it twice and that you'd reinstated it, hence no mention in the edit summary. As far as I was concerned I'd left it in when removing the linkspam and tidied it away on a later edit, leaving Desktop Tower Defense as a prompt to use sources and expand that section into prose. My mistake. The reason I removed it was that we don't seem to have any examples of TD games bar Desktop TD, meaning the statement is prompting readers to reinstate external links, potentially ending in a big lump of them or bickering over who gets to stay in (ugh). On top of that, it's preferable to have paragraphs rather than bullet points, it would be possible to leave a fairly tight paragraph about DTF to be built upon when more references are kicking about to discuss other games and their places in the history of TD. Someoneanother 14:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point. On the other hand, the concept of genre rather requires that we have more than one good example.  I see some newer games listed which may be accumulating good sources.  If we insist on sources then we may be able to keep the spam at bay.  I'll give it more thought. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: FF7 Famicom AFD
How would the sources referencing the original research done for more information not validate the original research? Several of the sites in question did include their own thoughts on the game (i.e. Joystiq), and the (albeit lamented) geocities site went in depth on its own in terms of the game difficulty/battle rate confirmation. I myself could write something for it along the same very lines as the original off my own research of the rom, but I'm hardly a valid source either...basically what I'm getting at is getting other in-depth looks at the item from reputable sources that could be used here would be insanely difficult.

I'm sorry if I'm being a bother with this, but I've just been pushing very hard to keep the articl legit and notable (and despite statements to the contrary by one fellow hiding behind an IP, have not resorted to foul play). I just need a direction to be pointed in to take care of whatever roadblocks are left for the article to remain stand alone and significant.

Thanks for you time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Validating it is a little strong, none of the blogs have put their reputation on the line by linking to another blog post, all they're doing is flagging it up. If, for argument's sake, the game turned out to be a hoax, who's going to take the editorial responsibility? Cinnamon Pirate. The umpteen blogs collectively are not going to share any responsibility, they undertook no serious research. It's a grey area, but it would sit a lot better if these blogs actually rolled up their sleeves and reviewed the game itself, the more reliable sources could be leaned on to at least show that someone is taking editorial responsibility. Until some of these writers decided that this game is worth the time to write about properly it's hanging on Cinammon Pirate's blog post, which is not the subject of the article.


 * You don't have to apologize, discussing something with someone who's shown an interest is hardly bothering them, if other contributors felt for whatever reason they couldn't discuss things with me then it would be a gross failure on my part. Someoneanother 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Geneforge
Didn't want to rate it yet without giving you a shout first, but can you possibly enlarge the reception section for it and add a Development/History section? I don't know the full extent of the citable resources, thus why I'm mentioning it here first. It is a very good read from what I looked over though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, they're very noticeable holes right now. To be honest, what I was hoping for was some confirmation that gameplay and story don't resemble gibberish for someone reading it. The development section is going to be very short, but I have a couple of things lined up to add info to it. There aren't many reviews but two or three of them are a very good size and will enable a proper reception section to be built. Since you're here, would you mind looking at the talk page of 24: The Game and commenting on whether you agree with the suggestions I listed, or not? I didn't enjoy writing anything since yourself and Krator had suggested A rating, but there seems to be a lot of scrutiny over video game articles recently. If GA rating is difficult to obtain for whatever reason (quibbling over reliability of sources or lack of development info when there seriously isn't any available would be two reasons), then ignoring that band and heading for a complete, well written and well referenced article up to A standards is a good way forward. In this case, a lot of the issues of the article would need to be dealt with to pass GA, but GA is possible because the development section is there and well written. If you see what I mean? Anyway, I'll try to get on with the reception and development, thanks for looking. Someoneanother 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One suggestion I can give you: swap the images in the main article currently around. The statistics one looks like it belongs more with gameplay, and the dungeon one more with the plot. Also you might be able to pad the Development section a little with in-depth release information and such if you can (i.e. how was it distributed, etc). It'll give a little more meat to that whole bit there while remaining informative.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do just that. Dur me - Spiderweb designs games for Mac then ports them to Windows, that goes for every single release, if I can find a statement to that effect in an interview then that's something else. Plus, there might be a statement somewhere saying "Geneforge sold well, I'm making another", in fact I know he said something like "it sold well and I enjoy using the new game engine". Thanks for your advice. Someoneanother 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

24: The Game
I've spent some time reviewing your comments and incorporating the changes. When you get a moment, could you have another pass through and a look at my notes on the talk page? Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You certainly have, that's some great work. I actually got the new message while previewing a post to you there X) And there was me wondering "now what have I done...." ha ha. Someoneanother 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug ya again
Assessments are kinda moving at a snail's pace, but I could use someone to look at Alleyway at least. Short of the actual manual (which people have assured me doesn't have anything I'm missing though they can't get me the contents of it @_@) I've got every bit of information on the game I could find in the best format I could pull off. Just need it looked at and rated really, and you have a cool enough head to do the job. Thanks for you time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop saying sorry ;) I've kept the article at the same rating but left some suggestions which will hopefully be of at least some use. In a sense the assessment dept. is a victim of its own success - since it means a fresh pair of eyes actually proof-reading and giving a different opinion it's a very useful tool, the more it's used the more it's wanted. If I can help with anything else you're most welcome to ask. Someoneanother 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, addressed everything you brought up save for two things. I went with more of a design similar to the Tetris page, which really looks very encyclopedic but is held back by too much POV stuff which I kept clear of, and left the ref links as they were because they're easier for me to manage that way (WP:CITE does state I don't have to use the template x_o) Anyway the article can't really get any additional useful citations unless some design documents appear from nintendo, as I've checked every american review at this point (and there weren't many...the game wasn't taken as seriously as the other launch titles for the system). Other than keeping an eye out and tidying I can't do anymore with the article, so could you take another look at it please?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC) That above is probably a lot more jumbled that I mean it to be. I basically just finished two hours of going through the entire game to check my facts before posting them (the perfect score bit was a nightmare), so my brain is a bit fried. But in a nutshell the article is improved heavily per your suggestions.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Someoneanother 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

All points you mentioned should be addressed and remedied.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In your own time, don't bore yourself with it if you need a change. Someoneanother 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I meant I got everything you pointed out in the last talk page post taken care of, or at least it should be ^^;--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh... bollocks, you're never going to believe what I just stumbled across (it's this particular site, I've been unable to identify their own material compared to their external links), here's a 4 page preview with running commentary from Vogel, with some great nuggets. A small section it will be no longer. Someoneanother 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, remember me? Anyway wanted to give a shout that I've tended to the points you mentioned on the talk page regarding Alleyway, just took a long while to locate the EGM review (which turned out to be worth it). If you could take another look at it to make sure there isn't anything else I should tidy up before I push for either A or GA status I'd appreciate it amigo. Thanks for you time as always.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to, will do this evening if that's OK, just doing a few quick edits. Someoneanother 11:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tribalwars
I fail to see your logic, or reasoning or the admin who deleted the pages reasoning. Tribalwars is a GERMAN designed game, hence why it has mostly GERMAN awards. If you could speak/understand German then you would be able to find plenty of awards for it on GERMAN websites. Just because you do not speak german, doesn't mean the awards don't count. And besides TW has awards in English too. If you could point me in the direction of the person who deleted the page, i will take it up with him. I could look through your contribs but i will be polite and ask first. Now either give me a legitimate reason why the TW page cannot be reinstated and editted so it is updated to the correct standards, or if you can't think of one, and this is the most likely path you will take, then just put the page back so it can be updated. --Oscardog1991 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected from recreation. According to [|the block log] Texas Android deleted it last, discussion needs to take place with them. Once discussion with them has taken place, deletion review is an option. Someoneanother 11:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not working for some reason. Here's TexasAndroid. Someoneanother 12:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy V GA review
Thank you for taking the time to review Music of FFV. I have tried to fix the problems that you found with the article, and I believe it is ready for you to look at, whenever you get a chance. Thank you very much as well for going in depth on the "well written" section of the GA rules- most reviewers only glance over the article for that, and I have a problem with using informal language or weak sentence structure sometimes in the articles I write. --PresN (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DeFRaG PR
Hi. Many thanks to DeFRaG peer review, I've fixed many of these issues. Could you come back and provide some informations what's more can be done in this article? Thanks ;) Visor (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey...
Just so you know, you're being quoted at User:Dihydrogen_Monoxide/GA_tools. That quote made me sad to see...I hope you take another look at the GA project at some stage. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a reflection on my own disquiet and feeling of being unable to help, rather than anything that had been done or said by anyone else. I will be helping with the GA process slowly, sticking to video games and building up my understanding and hopefully avoiding becoming dead weight. The rate of assessments has been a criticism of WP, so clearing the bottleneck is something I've wanted to help with for a little while. See you there. Someoneanother 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * :) :) Glad to see your name there. Gimme a yell when you've done a review, if you like - I'd be happy to help. Trust me, you are very much able to help - we need more good editors like you. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's awesome. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks for the offer of checking up on my reviews. I didn't want to bother you with this one, you seem to be extremely busy lately. Besides which, the article is of good quality and those most involved seem to be Nojr and Judge Surreal, who I'm sure would be reasonable if they felt anything was amiss with the review. To quote former chief-inspector Dreyfus; "Every day, in every way, it's getting better and better... nyah-ha-ha." :) Someoneanother 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I have plenty of time for people like you. :) But yeah, those guys are good people - they'll help you improve, certainly. Gimme a yell when you're done anyway. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're on my watchlist again - nice GAN work. Rock on. :) Any news on EarthBound review finishing up? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * :) I intend to keep pushing at them, though the stall of the Earthbound GA threw me a little. Nojr hasn't been active since the 16th, he had stated that he needed to study and was involved in an FA attempt as well. If he hasn't returned by next week I'll fail the article so another attempt can be made when it's had another going-over. Someoneanother 10:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea, that's what I generally do if they haven't said they'll be back some time definite. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Music of FF12 GAN
Alright, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, if you'd like to take another look at the article. --PresN (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Species of StarCraft assessment
Thanks for the asssessment. There's just one thing I'd like to raise that I don't think's appropriate to raise on the talk page. It may be a matter of personal preference, but I disagree with the importance rating. I tend to go by this when assessing myself, and although its in no way official, it does lend itself well for its task. StarCraft is one of our top-importance articles, and one of the reasons for it being so is its full introduction of unique races into the RTS genre, making it one of the benchmark RTS's. I'd personally disagree with the importance as the article focuses on one of the major reasons to StarCraft's success, and as such fits better as mid when ranked against Krator's scale. However, its your call, whether you want to revise the importance is up to you. -- Sabre (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The low rating was an oversight on my part, and one which you'd be totally justified in correcting by upping it to mid rating, sorry about that. I'll have a read-through ASAP to give you some proper feedback. Someoneanother 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rogue (Computer Game) assessment
THANKS! Excellent place to start off, and Ill check some of the GA articles for models. IM OFF!...71.193.2.115 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, the project has resources and editors who can help, if you need any further info drop me a note or ask at the project. Someoneanother 11:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the feed back. I will use your post on the talk page as a checklist. I will report back here when its complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy X-2 GAN
Allright, I think I've gotten everything you mentioned taken care of. Feel free to take another look. --PresN (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Still retired?
*fingers crossed* dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the futility of trying to hammer out articles in a constantly shifting mass, where nothing can be nailed down, is a little too depressing. Wikipedia has a lot going for it, but too much heat is generated and not enough light. A lot of problems could be solved if some binding decisions were made, and a little more emphasis was placed on appropriate decisions being made and stuck to, but this is apparently out of the question. I will pop by and make a few edits here and there, but I'm not going to even attempt to keep articles on the straight and narrow, I've no authority to stop good-intentioned contributors wasting their time adding inappropriate materials (see Insaniquarium) and neither has anybody else. Despite which, thanks for dropping by and your help in navigating the GA process, it was beneficial and uplifting. Take care. Someoneanother 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * *grins* (Don't feel obliged to edit more because I spotted you, muahahah!) giggy (O) 08:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by the above statement, but I do get something from editing and the fact is I've spent hours of my life navigating the confusing mess which these articles are hung on, it would be a shame to waste it by not having a go at small tasks when the urge arises. I'm hoping to nibble at some GAs and assessments once I've caught up on some sleep. Nice to see you're still ticking over - keep fighting the good fight. Someoneanother 08:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * if you are up for some small tasks, the Main Page FA could do with some new eyes. :) giggy (O) 08:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will keep checking, good work on that. What's this hatred of AoE3? I played AoE2 for.. god knows how many years, and found 3 ace. Someoneanother 09:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's because AoE was what got me into video gaming. And then AoK just strengthened this (ie. I started playing in about 2000, when both were out). Come AoE3, it just didn't seem right to have guns in an Age game. I'm probably more a fan older games anyways; I've been playing epic amounts of Midtown Madness of late, for instance. :) giggy (O) 09:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was exactly the same, even bought the game once and didn't think a lot of it, got rid. Must be at least a year later I tried again and got the expansions, and my GOD have they improved every aspect. I was a hopeless turtler all the way through AoE, AoE 2 and AoM, never managed to break out of it. The same in AoE3, but then gradually I started to enjoy predating on enemy villagers and crippling their economy. AoE2 has a very linear series of rushing techniques, put villager one here, villager eight there, all very uniform and dull, hence I never bothered. With AoE3, the control of trade routes and native settlements is key to building a strong economy, you have to get out there in order to put the squeeze on the enemy. Instead of spending the game start watching your villagers spawn, you're sending out your explorer to kill guardians and nab treasure. The card system seems like a gimmick at first, but then you level up and get access to the more valuable cards, and start fine-tuning your civ. according to your playing style. Coupled with each civ. having a raft of unique units and a different playing style, different cards available, a different optimum economy etc. etc. Once you get over the guns hurdle and get stuck into random maps it'll hit you just how much they've refined an already fantastic game. Musketeers function exactly the same as archers, when it boils down to it, and the cannons add an extra layer. I'd recommend just giving it a chance some time, no RTS came close to improving on AoE2 for me, not even AoM, but this managed. Someoneanother 09:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've played... just not much... I obviously didn't get that much out of it in a short time. Might try it again one day. Meh. I think I loved AoM too much though. giggy (O) 10:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Titans (Crash of the Titans)
Since the nomination, I have found articles that deal exclusively with the Titans, such as this one. I also added an out of universe section on Titans_%28Crash_of_the_Titans%29. I believe that I can make still further such changes and therefore hope that you may reconsider your stance there. Even if you still feel that it doesn't merit an individual article, then I hope that you might at least conisder the possibilities of merging some of what I added and allowing for a merge and redirect based on these changes. Thanks. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already seen these sources since I had a look awhile ago, the article is one of several on a to-do list regarding establishing notability, I had no luck back then and was expecting the article to hit AFD at some point. In terms of third-party commentary the only thing the IGN piece states is "we've been given some images and a few details about some of the Titans", it's usable somewhere on the game's article but doesn't add weight to an article on the Titans as an individual subject. The interview has some useful data, but again not enough to act as an article foundation. I would be open to merge and redirect if there was something in the article that could conceivably be used, and there hasn't been with the sole exception of the development data you added. That being the case, I would strongly suggest that you copy and paste it to the Crash of the Titans article to improve it further, regardless of the outcome of the AFD it would be beneficial to that article. Someoneanother 06:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Conan's video game assessment
Hi, I have addressed some of your suggestions and seeking clarification over the others. Please have a look. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)