Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Shoot 'em up 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. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a good job; only two issues are remaining :-) Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you now have a good article! Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridies- Major props on the successful GAN. Last month I stumbled across a couple good print sources and thought of working on the article, but found you had already done an excellent job on it. If you plan on going to FAC next, let me know if you're still looking for some sources to fill some gaps or need a copy edit.
Again, awesome job on the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi,

I'll be reviewing the GA nomination of First-person shooter.

I will comment in Talk:First-person shooter/GA1.

Regards, --  Chzz  ►  15:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now written a partial review; I look forward to hearing your replies. --  Chzz  ►  19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid, comprehensive responses. I will try to respond to the ASAP, but it might take me some time to go through all the stuff. I'll let you know. --  Chzz  ►  23:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses added; more to follow later. --  Chzz  ►  01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added lots more; in particular, please check out the 2 links at the end - I think they could be very useful references. Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Glad to see the improvements, I will be able to spend some time on this within the next 6 hours or so, when I plan to go through the points we've covered, tidy up the list and see what remains. --  Chzz  ►  19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I see that the article has improved considerably; I guess you're still working on some things? I'll hold off on the GA for now, so please leave me a quick note on my own talk page when you want me to have another look over it for GA. Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  09:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. update - cool, I'll get to it ASAP; maybe tonight, more likely tomorrow. Cheers mate, --  Chzz  ►  22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm working on it right now. In the first section, I've gone through striking the stuff that's been done, and adding comments. At one point, you'll see I decided it was pointless to continue that way, so I've noted outstanding issues from then on, and I will put everything remaining under "13 March".

Hope this makes sense;

Apologies it took slightly longer to get to this than I hoped; I did a couple of helpme requests, and consequently became embroiled in 2 quite complex disputes.

Right - I'll carry on with the GA review.

--  Chzz  ►  03:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article promoted to GA

I have now completed the GA review and promoted First-person shooter to GA status. Thanks for all your hard work on this; I think it's really improved during the GA review. Also, I honestly believe that it has the scope to become a featured article, so I hope you'll continue to develop it; we mentioned several things in the review that could be further researched and add even broader coverage. The genre certainly has enough scope to become FA - it's an interesting topic. The history is looking good now, in that it 'tells the story'.

If I can help out further, let me know. I'll continue with the discussions on WP:VG about the headers. Well done. --  Chzz  ►  23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The VG Barnstar
		For your fantastic work getting shoot 'em up, light gun shooter, and first-person shooter to good article status. Your no-nonsense, grab the article and improve the shit out of it approach is something I wish more Wikipedians had inside of them. I almost waited on this barnstar, because I know there are more articles you've contributed to that are on the path to GA. But I realized that if I waited, you'd never get a barnstar because you're always working on something. That work ethic only makes you deserve this barnstar more. Good job. Randomran (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to ask if Torus Trooper redirect to ABA Games could be reverted? I think it's game just like any other and deserves it's own page, not only some blurry paragraph on page of company which made it. I think the change was not discussed enough to be made, thus I suggest reverting it back. Do you agree with this? toxygen (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think having article for this particular game helps a lot as it is open-source game and would certainly help to arise awareness not only in gaming community but also programming (exceptionally programmed in D). Particularly, I learnt about the game thanks to wikipedia, so I'm pretty sad to see article gone. I think it could be considered as representative work of Kenta Cho and serve as reel for reader to bring interest other his games (as it was in my case). I certainly won't revert it back if you don't agree with my point of view. In case you change your opinion, please do inform me. toxygen (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I will be doing the Good Article review for ABA Games sometime today. I'll make any comments on the article at Talk:ABA Games/GA1. MuZemike 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say that I've enjoyed working with you on shoot 'em ups and fighting games. The whole action genre has really come a long way in the past few months. We have a lot of GAs to look at:

• Light gun shooter: GA! Great work here.
• Shoot 'em up: More great work on this GA.
• Platform game: one of the first genre GAs.

I also think the following articles will be at GA with just a bit more work:

• Action game: I've already referenced the gameplay. If we get the other articles to GA status, we should be able to fill in the history here no problem.
• Shooter game: in rougher shape, but just like action games I'm confident that this will fall into place once the other shooter articles are done.
• Fighting game: peer review in progress, and we'll be able to get to GA status with a bit of work.
• First-person shooter: this is a GA in the bank, IMO.

But here are the tough ones, and I'd really like your opinion on them:

• Beat 'em up: We did find some decent research when working on "fighting games", but this could be tough.
• Hack and slash: Really tough, because I can't find much out there that calls this a game genre. However, this might be original research and it might not be a game genre at all. Golden Axe and TMNT are often called beat 'em ups, so maybe we'd just need to go through all these "genre" fields and rename them.
• Tactical shooter: I found a *bit* of stuff. We might end up with an article longer than Tower defense, and I think that would be okay. The history is probably the hard part.
• Third-person shooter: By far the toughest. What do you say beyond "this is a shooter with a third-person perspective"? Any history here would be pretty disjointed. And yet merging it in with something else seems really inappropriate for something so major.

Just wanted to get your feedback. While we wait for the review of fighting games and FPSes finish up. Which do you think we should work on next? Randomran (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Let's start on beat 'em ups then. Keep an eye on hack and slash and third-person shooter and let me know what you find. My limited research on 3PS tends to mention Tomb Raider a *lot*, with Gears of War coming up a few times, and not much else. We'll sit on tactical shooter another little while, but I'll admit that a merge makes sense if we can't expand it. ... Good point about some of the other non-genre articles related to action games. I'm not sure how to handle those either. I think the best strategy would be to work on these, and then figure out which peripheral topics we'll need to work on to make the topic work. Randomran (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy smokes! I disappear for a few days, and you run away with the ball. If I wasn't so happy with the result, I'd almost say I was jealous. I'll have some free time to check in. You've covered the main thrust of the topic, and I definitely think it's GA worthy. But let me see if I can fill in some gaps. Randomran (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seeing as we might be able to walk and chew gum at the same time... how would you feel about picking one of the GAs and trying to get it to FA status? They're brutal, but we can pick the strongest/easiest GA to work on. Maybe FPS would stand up to that kind of scrutiny? Randomran (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually have a little bit of research on the rhythm genre. I'll try to throw it in your User:Bridies/Sandbox by this weekend. I'm gonna be pretty busy over the next month. But hopefully I can make some contributions to all the articles you mentioned. Even on 3PS, it should only be a matter of looking at the Category:Third-person shooters for some key titles, and doing a google of "title AND third person shooter", to see what we find. At least that will cover the history section. Worse comes to worst, we end up with something short and sweet like the article on the tower defense genre. Randomran (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's looking like a great article, IMO. But it's basically an orphan. Where do you think we should fit it in? Obviously, there's some support for it being an action game. But it also may make more sense to link to it from music video game. Or maybe both? What would that mean for templates like Template:VG Action or Template:Video game genre? You've obviously done more research, so I'm curious to see what you think. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be bold... I posted links to the templates above. Go ahead and edit them. Great work, by the way! Randomran (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the discussion about this template. I have now made a proposal, looking to establish consensus to change it, and I'd be grateful if you could express your approval or disapproval, in WT:WikiProject_Video_games#Proposal.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  23:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chill on the mass-deletions. Use fact tags and work with me. There's an absolute need for the treatment of the term in realistic way that corresponds with its usage, and that isn't happening with just the (extremely problematic) History section that just seems to be a collection of sourced commentaries about games with absolutely no attempt to establish actual patterns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.113.35 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material will be sourced, but it takes time to dig through piles of old magazines. Just ease up a bit. Challenge first, delete later. You're even deleting stuff that is completely sourced, so I question the good faith of your edits. It just seems destructive to me.

The problem with the "History" section is that it makes no effort to talk about the origins of the genre or the term itself (and concept thereof) in a way that corresponds with reality, and it's full of irrelevant information about how Gears of War has a horror atmosphere or Tomb Raider has Prince of Persia elements. The information is sourced, but it isn't useful. There's a need for a change in strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.113.35 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article, at present, does a poor job of explaining where the genre came from, let alone what it means. It's going to be hard to find resources for that. But if you take a look at the history section for featured articles like 4X, you'll see that it's appropriate to discuss the details of specific games and how they advanced the genre. It will definitely make sense to talk about how Gears of War and Tomb Raider put their own spin on the genre. We're going to need both the origin *and* the development of specific games -- this isn't either or. Randomran (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to see that this article has finally been created. Congratulations on your hard work. I was very active on the "Music video games" article for a number of months, but I don't have nearly the free time these days unfortunately. I just read the article and apart from a few minor things (which I changed) I think it's a great start! If you are interested I have a chronological list of rhythm games that I came up with several months ago to help me at the MVG article. I was mainly interested in the origins of the subgenre so my list ends in early 2000. Would you like me to post it here in a collapsed form? -Thibbs (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these have articles here at Wiki. This isn't a fantastic list, and will probably serve best as a start point or a cross-check, but anyway... Good luck, and let me know if you need help with anything. I don't have much time, but the topic is of interest to me so I'm happy to do what I can. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have time to copy-edit an article? You're good at cutting out the crap and getting right to the point. A while back I worked on an article and was trying to get it to GA status, but it failed its nomination because it wasn't clear and was too loaded with examples. Let me know if you have a few. Randomran (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. No WP:OWNERship issues, so feel free to go wild. Worse comes to absolute worst, I can always re-add anything that is lost. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. Your suggestions make a lot of sense. I'm going to try to fix them up and then re-nominate. One last question: can you take a closer look at the "recent history" section and tell me if it goes into inappropriate levels of detail? Maybe even give it one more copy edit? Randomran (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna give nomination another shot. Thanks again. Randomran (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed ABA Games as a Good Article (nice job!), but please still read the nomination as I added additional comments for future reference and for further improvement. I will also review Beat 'em up. Hopefully sometime today I will read through it really closely. Since I look for the same stuff in every GA review (if you haven't noticed already, my big things are verifiability, images, and, above all, good writing/usage), expect similar comments that I made in the ABA Games GAN. After taking a quick glance at the article, it should pass easily. MuZemike 17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article and put it on hold, see the review page for details. Good job! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts claim to be bringing the page in line with its sources, when in fact the page certainly does not source many of the assertions surrounding the origins of the FPS or the influence of Doom, etc. My changes improved readability and were not incompatible with attribution guidelines. I will try to find some better sources for the MIDI Maze information but it currently stands just as well as the info on Maze War, etc. Andre (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing G-Police for GA. I was originally going to review Rhythm game (as well as Discography of the Chocobo series) for GA, but the whole debacle with my desktop breaking down this past week has caused David Fuchs to beat me to the punch on that one ;) As usual, I will place my assessment and any additional comments at Talk:G-Police/GA1. MuZemike 17:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the GAN on hold pending corrections. All comments made on the GAN page mentioned above. MuZemike 20:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It has passed! MuZemike 00:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto- I've posted my review of the article: Talk:Rhythm game/GA1. It is currently on hold until some minor issues get taken care of. Post any questions you may have on the review page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Bridies- I was looking through the 2008 Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition and stumbled across the fighting games section. I remember you needed a citation for Super Fire Pro Wresting Premium X being the first "create a fighter", and the book lists it as a record along with others like first to use parrying, combos, cooperative fighting, taunting and many more. If you're looking for anything specific, let me know and I'll look it up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Released in 1996, Super Fire Pro Wrestling X Premium was the first fighting game that allowed the gamer to create his or her own fighting character. Players could select a set of moves and alter the appearance of their chosen fighter at will, a facility that proved highly popular in later fighting games."

<ref>{{cite book| editor= Craig Glenday| title= Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2008| series= [[Guinness World Records]]| date= 2008-03-11| publisher= Guinness| isbn= 978-1-904994-21-3| page= 84| chapter= Record-Breaking Games}}</ref> (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Everything has now been addressed from the first GAN, so I passed it (Instead of making a 2nd GAN page, I just made note of it at Talk:Fighting game/GA1). Nice job! MuZemike 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm not stalking you. But I stumbled across your sandbox and noticed it was for Desert Strike. I have an article about the development and the game manual, but I didn't have much else so I never worked on the article. You want me to fill out the development section and add citations to the gameplay? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm working on finishing up the development section right now. You might also want to contact User:David Fuchs. He has some good access to print articles, and might be able to find some sources about the public and military reactions to the game's release. Even CNN and BBC covered it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is info about the sequels, but only about a third of the article is about the rest of the sequels. Looking for anything specific or you just want me to add whatever I can? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I started the section for sequels, but it's pretty sparse. There's a few more tidbits about Soviet, Nuclear, and an unreleased "Future Strike", but not much else. Go a head and fill in what else you can find, and I'll see if the tidbits can be integrated into it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Looks fine to me. Anything more should probably go into the series article. I may have one or two magazine reviews for the Mega Drive version if you want to beef that part up some. Not sure really, I'd need to dig for them.

All in all, it looks good. Who knew it could be this fleshed out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Very cool. Never thought this article could get this much attention: DYK and soon GA.

It was kinda nice to only work on the development of an article instead of the whole thing. Let me know if you ever want to collaborate again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just a heads up- The article didn't offer much about the sequels. I guess you could paraphrase the stuff that overlaps between the first and second title. But I'm not certain where to look for info specifically about Jungle Strike. Maybe some previews mention some development-related tid bits. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Congrats on the successful GAN. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hm...I'm kind of unsure how to proceed. While there are two supports, I would feel safest if we brought up to WP:VG the possibility of anything validating his statements. I get the feeling that fellow isn't done yet despite his last post. Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right. Looking at his talk page it seems he's a rather forceful thorn in the side for other articles too, in the same "this preceded that" manner. Definitely something to keep an eye on since him citing himself like that does seem to go under the OR guideline well enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article and it's been placed on hold until a few issues have been address. Check the review page for details. Good work! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're aware, the article will be failed tomorrow unless you notify me that you've addressed/explained all issues, or request an extension (which is reasonable, considering progress is being made). Contact me soon. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article (again) and it's been placed on hold until a few issues have been addressed. Check the review page for details. Good work! Vantine84 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my second run through the article. I rearranged some material during the copyedit, and if I displaced references while doing so, I apologize. Anyway, the article will probably not be subject to any 1a complaints this time; if it is, I'll be up for more work on it. Notify me when it goes up and I'll give my support, as it looks to be of featured quality. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations on getting it to FA! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thanks for the barnstar. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One good turn deserves another.

		The VG Barnstar
		For your continued work in under-represented video game articles, notably the genre articles and older games like ToeJam & Earl, which I still happily play on occasion. Please keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the issues I had at the FAC. I have struck the comments and given my support. In return, could you have a look at Tragic Kingdom, which is listed at FAC too: WP:Featured article candidates/Tragic Kingdom/archive3? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issues you brought up at WP:Featured article candidates/Tragic Kingdom/archive3. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jungle Strike, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on the article. It is far better than I thought would have been possible. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Bridies, I was wondering about this statement that was contested by an anon user. Do we know if it does specifically refer to fighting game characters, and not video game characters in general? If so, perhaps this should be made clearer. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section is here:

Wikipedia:CITE#CHALLENGED. The likelihood of the game credits being seriously challenged is pretty much zero. Note that film articles, for instance, do not include sources for the directors, writers, etc. - Richfife (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is likely to challenge the credits if they are accurate. A challenge would come from someone that thinks they are not. But... That's beside the point. Checking the videogame template instructions, there is only room for the designer, so there he is. On a side note, as a developer on the project I have to say a couple of things. 1) Good job! 2) A large number of the verifiable facts in the article represent official stories that aren't actually all that close to what really happened. Probably the case for almost all of the VG articles, though. And verifiability comes before truth. 3) I tried to find a reference for the Ku Klux Klan incident, but couldn't. If you can find it (believe me, you'll know it when you do), it would be worth including. - Richfife (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been placed on hold until some issues have been addressed. Check the review page for details. Vantine84 (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, the week is up tomorrow. Vantine84 (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has failed due to lack of progress on issues identified during the review. As this is the second time this has occurred, please refrain from nominating articles for GAN in the future unless you're willing to commit the time necessary to justify a reviewer making the effort to look it over. Vantine84 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bridies. Yes, I own that issue and here's the scan. The author of the "Second Opinion" is Andy McNamara and everything else on the page was written by Matt Helgeson. Anyway, here's the reference without the author parameter filled in:

{{cite journal|author=|title=''ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth'' review|journal=[[Game Informer]]|date=November 2002|issue=115|page=137}}

Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers. -sesuPRIME 03:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryota Niitsuma's third response here maybe of some use to you for the article "Fighting game". Best, « ₣M₣ » 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an image of it, sorry about the wait and the image quality (I don't have access to a scanner right now but this should work just as well, let me know if something's illegible). Here's the citation template:

{{cite journal |last1=Bratcher |first1=Eric |year=2002 |month=December |title=ToeJam & Earl III: Mission to Earth |journal=[[Official Xbox Magazine]] |issue=13 |pages=154}}

--Surachit (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just noticed you reviewed one of my animated gifs and marked it for deletion for bad rationale and non-free content. I am sorry for that, I thought I chose the correct options in the upload wizard, and the rationale I filled it as I have been doing with the other animated gifs I have uploaded. I confess I have been using a kind of one-size-fits-all for the videogame animation rationales more or less, and I guess that is where I might have gone wrong? I have created other animations for other articles (you can see links on my user page) and if they are not ok I need to correct them, can you please tell me what is not correct or what should I change? NeoGenPT (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You undid a change I applied to the Fighting games article and declared it "not sourced". There isn't a way I can exactly "source" this because it's a feature present in many fighting games (a timer). So how exactly should I add it to the article? SuperSonicTH (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at stake here is that I can source A fighting game but unless you want me to run down a huge list of fighting games that have this feature, it needs to be accepted its a genre staple. I can provide all sorts of individual, disconnected sources but there isn't an objective definition of what makes a fighting game to be cited that can definitively lock it down. If the other features of a fighting game can be taken at face value, why can't this? SuperSonicTH (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did yourself undo my revision of the first Person Shooter article that provides additional reference for the changes?

The reference I provided for "The Hidden Below" includes a demo of the game, which is surely the required proof (q and z look up and down whilst caps lock crouches). The time stamp of the demo files is August 1994, predating "Dark Forces" by about half a year. I can confirm the full version's files have a similar timestamp, though I know me just saying that doesn't mean anything. Admittedly "The Hidden Below" is obscure to the point that there is little to no information out on the web about it, hence why I stated that "Heretic" and "Dark Forces" were the first widely known games to include the ability to look up and down and/or crouch.

There is ample information around the internet that "Heretic" had the ability to look up and down (as well as fly) and that its release date was December 23rd 1994, predating "Dark Forces" by a few months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.148.235 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's the deal. I am not up to speed on how to cite things with a reference here on Wikipedia. But this IS supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and just because someone takes the time to add new knowledge to the database, that new knowledge ought not be be "undone" by a reviewer just because it's not cited. Take the time to look into it yourself before you undo something! I see that a poster above had this same problem with you and he had actually posted references for changes he made, so clearly the problem is not with people posting factual information, but your being a poor reviewer.

Now, for the record, my contribution was this: the 1988 game Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode features true first person shooter 3-D maze levels. This game came out FOUR YEARS before Wolfenstein 3-D. How you don't think that is worthy of noting in an article on the history of First Person Shooter games is beyond me, but you can easily see evidence of this by googling the game and seeing its pictures for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.81.12 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:REVERT policy before performing reverts on good faith edits. Please be advised that you are to revert a good faith edit only as a last resort rather than as a primary option. Please also note that you are expected to be familiar with the revert policy before posting notices to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as is clearly stated on that page. Failure to adhere to this policy prevents peer likelihood to assume good faith and has a negative impact on the Wikipedia community. --Tearlock (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to demonstrate that your edits are not in good faith. bridies (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have acted in good faith on behalf of those users whose content you reverted prematurely in violation of Wikipedia's revert policy. If it should not have been reverted to begin unless done as a last resort, and you failed to act in good faith then you are in no position to criticize my reversal of your bad judgement. Revise rather than revert unless the good faith contribution constitutes vandalism.--Tearlock (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you don't understand the guidelines on good faith or any other policy for that matter. If you want to take that line, be my guest. bridies (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were one of the reviewers of the previous killer7 FAC that was closed early for procedural reasons. Do you have any time to comment on this new one? It can be found here. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll let you know after I find a good copy-editor, but as far as I can tell, they're in relatively high demand. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Prime Blue (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Video games developed in Japan was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation request has stalled because some of the lesser-involved parties did not answer to the note they received on their talk page. I have notified users jgp and Ost316 again, who both are the most likely to be interested in participating, though mediation cannot commence until all parties agree.

If you have no objections to going into mediation even without the users that have not signed up so far, please leave a short indication of your agreement in this section at the request page. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request for mediation concerning Video games developed in Japan, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Hello, your nomination of Super Skidmarks at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. bridies (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied as well again.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This may seem a little out-of-the-blue, but...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I think this is the first of these I've ever given out; I've been meaning to give you this for quite some time, but never got around to it until now. For your inspiring and absolutely incredible work improving and standardizing video game genre articles last year—which, as a whole, were a useless, cruft-ridden mess—I present you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar! I know you've moved on to different projects since then, but, regardless of the subject, keep up the amazing work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand that. If you ever go for FA on a genre article, count me in as a copyeditor. My writing ability has improved since I copyedited ToeJam & Earl for you last year—which, I might add, was a very enjoyable experience. I'd definitely be up for another such collaboration, should you head for the aforementioned goal. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute about romanizations for katakana words of non-Japanese origin has now entered mediation and is currently being talked about in this discussion page section. If you still wish to participate, please join the discussion. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please contribute to the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stealth_game#Stealth_game_is_a_genre.2FA_stealth_game_is_a_type_of_video_game? For now, we should either say "Stealth game is a video game genre" (which is consistent with at least the Action genre the last time I looked) or "A Stealth game is a type of video game" (which sounds less convoluted IMHO). Maybe we need to take the discussion to the WikiProject, hopefully find a good hybrid and then standardize (at least in the form of guidelines) the phrasing across the genre articles. Nczempin (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you deleted an addition i made asking for a source. I've worked on wikis before and feel my contribution was valid, in good faith, and should not have been deleted.

My grandmother and I play that video game all the time, and she loves the version i was writing about. She and I don't get much time together, it would really help us both if you could be helpful and collaborative and explain to me how to source my addition, rather than just deleting it. The wikis she and i work on require sources using different codes like simple brackets. English second language dont undertake the ref <bracket thing please helps us. She really wants me to ask you this, please help us source this. Please! -- 68.9.50.187 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other wikipedia has a reliable source but i don't know how to write the code. the source is the other wikipedia article. please help! - 68.9.50.187 (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridies- have you nominated yourself for a regular triple crown? I noticed that you're not listed on Wikipedia:Triple Crown. Would you like me to nominate you? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I see you already did, thanks. bridies (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the gamepad crown motivate you to press on with more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a Triple Crown.

• Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan#Breakpoint 16. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Rhythm game seems like a fine choice; it'll be less of a hassle than FPS to write/research, but it's still mainstream enough that bringing it to FA will be a bit of a coup. If you want to try to pull it off, I'll gladly sign on as a copyeditor. I don't think I'd be much help with content generation, though, since my knowledge of the subject is basically nil. You should definitely see if Masem's willing to lend a hand. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do. I'll get started in the next few days. Masem's comment makes me a little wary, but CRYSTAL is a pretty solid defense. All kinds of somewhat-unstable articles have been promoted to FA—thatgamecompany, for instance. They're in the middle of developing a game that will probably significantly alter the company's history, but, at FAC, it wasn't brought up even once. I doubt Rhythm game will have much trouble in that regard. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay; I'm ready to start. However, I'd like to clear one thing up before I head in. The first sentence reads, "Rhythm game, or rhythm action, is a genre of music-themed action video games." This seems ungrammatical, but I'm not sure how much wiggle room I'm allowed with the bold title of the article. Would it be okay to make it "Rhythm games, or rhythm action games, are a genre of music-themed action video games"? Perhaps, "A rhythm game, or rhythm action game, is a music-themed action video game"? I've never worked on an article about an abstract concept before, so I don't know what I'm "allowed" to do here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Well, I'll add the italics for now, and hope that someone can come up with a better solution in the future. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another question. In the lead, it says that Beatmania sparked an emergent popularity of rhythm games, but the Gameplay section says it was PaRappa. Which is correct? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. Oh, and sorry about the recent delay. I should be able to stay copyediting the article again in the next few days. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really, really sorry about the delay. I haven't forgotten. I've been trying something different (copyediting a printed version, then adding my changes to the article), and it's been slowing down the process. I should be back in the swing of things before the week is out. Again, really sorry. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've worked my way through the article. In all honesty, this was the most irresponsible copyediting job I've ever done. I took far, far more time than anyone could be expected to wait, and I can't apologize enough. I plan to go over the prose for a bit more fine-tuning, but feel free to continue your push toward FAC. Something I thought I should mention: I noticed that certain facts are mentioned outside of their set timelines; for example, Ouendan and Guitar Hero are discussed in the 1970-2000 section. That might cause complaints at FAC, but I'll leave it up to you to decide. Again, I'm extremely sorry that this has taken so long. I would be irate if a copyeditor had done this to me on an article I was working on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sounds good. I'll start doing final tweaks on the article ASAP. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay. I've been really sick for the last few days, so I haven't been doing much on Wikipedia. I'll read through the article again before you nominate it, but give me another day or two to start feeling better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Finally recovered, so I was able to give the article one last pass. I'm not sure how they're going to react to some of the more stat-intensive sections, but I don't think that it would be possible to make them more entertaining. To a certain extent, dryness comes with the territory. Good luck at FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks. I put it on my watchlist. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sorry to see that the FAC failed. Seems like you just got unlucky, really. I think you've got a good shot at making it next time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know that self-proclaimed experts are obnoxious. I've gotten into large arguments with them myself. I'm not trying to give you a hard time about it, but it really is best to just ignore it. Let the potential expert claim whatever he wants about his own accomplishments. I think that the majority of your fellow Wikipedians find such behavior petty, distasteful, and repellent. And frankly I think it's rhetorically damaging to the expert's arguments. After having lost arguments against this kind of editor in the past due mainly to my behavior, I've come to consider it baiting. I think that's really the best way to approach it. I don't want you to think that I hold the contributions of putative experts to a lesser standard than those of any other editor. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. I look forward to your review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bridies, here are the sources relating to the Strike series that we'd discussed earlier. I've collapsed them in tables to reduce their general bulkiness. Hopefully the result will be easy for you to use, but feel free to change the formatting however you see fit.

I have also made an attempt at translating the Russian source (Review of Soviet Strike for PS1 appearing in Great Drakon) and I'd be happy to share that with you if you'd like. And again, I have access to the article from Retrogamer #45 in case you can't get in touch with Guyinblack. Good luck with the articles. I'll be more available to help in August/September. -Thibbs (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding into the table above another part of the Russian review that I had neglected to add last time, as well as the RetroGamer "making of" article (this isn't the full article, but it's the only part that deals with Soviet Strike and Nuclear Strike at all) and also translations of the Russian material below. Let me know if anything above is unclear. -Thibbs (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2012, the project has:

147 Featured Articles 48 Featured Lists 6 Featured Topics 3 Featured Pictures

37 A-Class Articles 542 Good Articles 9 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

No WikiProject feature this issue. No featured editor this issue.

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's like 2 different articles about one and the same thing. --Niemti (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bridies. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 12:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Bridies. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! Your submission of Cannon Fodder 2 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Cannon Fodder (video game) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes to passive language noted. JDC808 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the other comments about the passive language. JDC808 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the GA review on And Yet It Moves! I really appreciate it. I have been revising the article based on your comments and was wondering if you would give it a second look with any new input. Thanks again! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Could you just make a proper grammer copy edit, as it's tagged now? --Niemti (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know we had a run in once in the past, for which all I can do is express my deepest regrets and apologies. You are a thoughtful and careful editor, and I engaged in some overreaction that was unbecoming. Anyway, I saw your discussions with Jagged on the FPS page because I have been shadowing him across wikipedia video game articles for several months now. During this time, I have been forced to revert numerous inaccurate additions, original research, and inappropriate use of sources. I gave a few examples on the RFC talk page in the section you started there, and I just wanted to let you know that if you or anyone else decides to take further action against Jagged from a video game standpoint that I am happy to help with the legwork and with providing numerous examples of editing abuses he has engaged in. Indrian (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cannon Fodder 3 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Cannon Fodder 3 for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cannon Fodder 3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cannon Fodder 3 for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 14:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cannon Fodder 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cannon Fodder 2 for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 14:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your revert. If you read again carefully, you should find that the original was correct. If you still disagree, let's discuss on the article's talk page. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bridies. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 16:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are:

• Halverson, Dave sub nom Dr.E. Urban Strike. DieHard GameFan. No.22 (Vol.2, Issue 10). Pg.64. October 1994.
• Halverson, Dave and Des Barres, Nicholas Dean. Canon Fodder. DieHard GameFan. No.25 (Vol.3, Issue 1). Pg.25. January 1995.
  • Note: the three scores come from "Skid", "Nick Rox", and "Takahara" in that order. "Nick Rox" is the nom de plume of Mr. Des Barres, but as far as I understood it both "Skid" and "Takahara" were pseudonyms for Dave Halverson. He's also the editor in chief so you can list him as the author alone if worst comes to worst. In other cases with scores like these I've seen people treat them like Famitsu Cross reviews, i.e. adding the scores and giving a total out of 300. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle it though.
• Halverson, Dave sub nom Takahara. Cannon Fodder. DieHard GameFan. No.25 (Vol.3, Issue 1). Pg.102. January 1995.

Enjoy. -Thibbs (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sure I'll figure something out. bridies (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Soviet Strike at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bridies!

Thanks again for your copyedits. Do you think that XIII (video game) may become a FA in its present shape? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take another look. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go and compare to the reception sections at popular GAs such as Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) - this one I've never touched (other than for updating categories, because I created a lot of them), and so it's incredibly chaotic and its style is awful. And yet it's still a GA. Quite typical, too - I cleaned up/rewrote many others like that. Oh and it's like that after a recent rewrite by someone else that "fixed a lot of punctuation, grammar and phraseology issues" because it used to be just horrible.

While Kasumi's reception is actually exceptionally clearly divided by themed paragraphs and easy to read. I even checked it for "featured", "included", "listed", "ranked" and such to not repeat in the same paragraph too much, small things like that. So your opinion was just insulting for me. --Niemti (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no, Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) is a C-class article. It was delisted from GA in 2007 and failed again in 2008. On that note: take any GAs needing clean-up to WP:GAR, I review against the criteria, not other-crap which has degraded or wasn't reviewed properly in the first place, sorry. I disagree regarding you're assertion that it's "exceptionally clearly divided by themed paragraphs and easy to read", and given the dozens of copy edits I made, I trust my opinion on clear and coherent prose more than I do yours. I made all those copy edits, you give an edit summary like this one, and you're complaining about being insulted? Please. bridies (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange I'd swear it was a GA. Well, in this case, for example, the related article Tifa from before my edits last summer (total chaos and badly written for so many reasons). Oh and yes, I did more than "dozens of copy edits". Actually, probably most of several thousand articles that I edited this year got a copy edit from me (more or less thorough). --Niemti (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing your point. bridies (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My point" is that your "opinion on clear and coherent prose" was wrong, and also you're complaining about allegedly "unclear and incoherent" stuff that was in your edit too. Because all you did was very quickly move some stuff around, almost randomly, while I did this on a much greater scale and with more sense, and with fixing the resulting issues (which you didn't), plus a variety of other improvements - from fixing the dead links, to citing the authors by name if needed, to overally improving flow and readibility, to getting away with a separate section about GD only (also removing the outdated "newest" about Dimensions for that matter). But you didn't even wait for me to finish, which is also "my point". --Niemti (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your point was supposed to be regarding how badly that Tifa article was supposedly written (which it wasn't)? Right, I get it, you think that section is clear and coherent, I don't. You might also want to use the edit summary once in a while if you're going to get worked up when people don't second guess what it is you're up to. bridies (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me an example of reception being "clear and coherent"? Your edit summary was just "reorganise... think this works", to which I disagreed ("nope"). After that, you started edit warring, not commenting on my further edit at all while reverting it (only writing ""nope" isn't a valid reason to revert", which didn't explain why you reverted my next edit too, including bringing dead links back). --Niemti (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also what, you thought Tifa's reception was... written well???? You've got to be kidding me, part deux. --Niemti (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not great, but adequate, and better than anything I've seen you write. All you seem to have done is added some of your editorialised hyperbole: Tifa has received an extremely positive reaction. As for coherent reception sections: Lara Croft. bridies (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to insult me, eh? My edits are here (not all of them, and pretty quick). Now,

[Yes, even the section name was wrong! My comments are in [], I'm bolding bad style. Almost nothing there is dated, there are no authors. Everything there is chaotic, there's not a trace of any negative reception. All the list names are also not turned into prose. And more.]

[removed, because of all the refs] bridies (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section was also badly outdated (barely updated since 2009). --Niemti (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and to compare with this shit above, my FFVII character GA is here: Yuffie Kisaragi. There's also FFX one, Yuna (Final Fantasy). How horrible they must be, just look at them. --Niemti (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with most of the stuff you've bolded. bridies (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me III. All the "nineteenth" and such, all the lack of proper punctuation, ALL THE LACK OF NAMES AND DATES IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ONE, all the chaos all the style errors, all the lack of negative reception whatsoever, all the other things that I already wrote of. I just lost my faith in you. See ya. --Niemti (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my actual edits in Tifa (there were some more too, but mostly these). But now i see you just really want to insult me, so bye. --Niemti (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with writing "nineteenth" (or "thirteenth", "twenty-fourth" or whatever); a few typos, so what (fix them); dates hardly essential, it's not a history section; "as they come" is a common English idiom, and given you were happy to quote nonsensical, broken English, I can't see why you'd have a problem with that one. See ya, indeed. bridies (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're also completely missing the point in digging into all this stuff. If I were failing the article for individual prose errors, I'd have failed it right away, as I said. You are going about the reception sections the wrong way, in slavishly giving every list position and quote possible (you're completely wrong that all the dates and names of the lists need, or even should, be mentioned in the prose) and dating them. We just take a representative sampling of these opinions to indicate the general pattern to the reader: Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work. The problem with articles like Kasumi is that they have so many similar quotes that they "become effusive". The two FF characters you linked are fine because they only have a paragraph or two; Tifa was leaning the same way but at least not too bad (and again, if anything you made it worse by just adding more similar stuff). bridies (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2012, the project has:

146 Featured Articles 49 Featured Lists 6 Featured Topics 3 Featured Pictures

43 A-Class Articles 577 Good Articles 11 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Features: "Is the Newsletter important?" and "Request for new writers and interviewers" No featured editor this issue.

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just have done an extensive research and I was able to find the Computer Games Magazine review, as well as the Games Domain and Game Power reviews of the game. Hahnchen provided me the PC Zone review so I can add them to the article. So, I'd like to ask you if you are willing to give me a hand at expanding the reception section a bit with this information? I'd be very very grateful :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are written on the talk page of the article. They are already formatted :). — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this when I get some time to edit. bridies (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Soviet Strike you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet Strike for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've made your case on a noticeboard, such as WP:AN, it's usually best to just let it develop rather than make frequent replies to points other editors say. You've obviously put a lot of effort into documenting the issues with the RFC/U, just give it time. I know it's frustrating but there's just not a great consensus on how to apply the civility pillar. It's unlikely that any who's evaluated the situation and posted a support or oppose comment is going to change their mind, so we're just going to have to wait and see how it turns out. It may take awhile as AN activity is using lower on weekends. Nobody Ent 14:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have opened a discussion at the above that might be of interest to you. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're still around, bridies. And thanks—I managed to get more done than I thought I would. Honestly, my leaving had less to do with frustration and more to do with burn-out. I will admit that Niemti tried my patience to the nth degree, but I have Wikidragon editing tendencies these days. I was most likely going to take a break with or without Niemti getting under my skin. What I dealt with wasn't even close to what I've seen Niemti say to you, though. If I was in your shoes, I'd probably never come back. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! I find it extremely sad that you have decided not to contribute to Wikipedia again and you will be hugely missed by your friends here at WP:VG and the project as a whole. You've been one of the most valuable editors I've seen on-wiki in recent years and you made so many positive contributions to many different articles. Please do not let abusive comments get to you. I can certainly understand your frustrations with Wikipedia attitudes and I really hope you consider returning to Wikipedia again when the time is right. If not, I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. :) Kind regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have anything to say, drop a line at WP:WPER. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti.

As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Jake Adelstein‎. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither poorly referenced nor controversial. bridies (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jake Adelstein. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. About Goto, not about Adelstein. Clearly poorly referenced (sourced only to Adelstein), and clearly controversial. Please do not re-insert this material again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, verifiable and uncontroversial. I await that block... bridies (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

PS. It wasn't me. Kleuske (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a proper noun, it's not a mass noun, and it's singular. I don't see how "a" isn't the right determiner. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fighting game is a singular, non-mass noun. "Fighting" is the genre. Unless you want to change the article title to something like "Fighting (video game genre)" (something that I don't think would be a good idea), the lead should probably begin with "A fighting game is a video game which ..." instead of "Fighting game is a genre". TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bridies, I saw you reverted my edit on China on the basis that I have somehow upset the "current article status quo". Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions, and my support of the change that Trust Is All You Need made is based on the facts documented in the constitution of the People's Republic of China. I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss this should do so on on the Talk:China page. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bridies. Noticed you have been dealing with User:Trust Is All You Need's recent "People's Democratic Republic" crusade over at China and Vietnam. Wondering if you could give me a hand dealing with him over at Talk:South Yemen? Keep up the good fight. GrahamNoyes (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridies, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!

22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually noticed it was a project of yours after I mentioned it at WPVG, and I'd considered notifying you about it—but it looks like you beat me to the punch. It's a solid article, so I doubt it'll have any trouble passing GAN. On the topic of old potential noms, though: do you think rhythm game could still make it at FAC? Does the prospect even interest you? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmyBlackwing:I think about it sometimes; I actually had an institutional Shibboleth account recently and stockpiled a load of journal articles on research into games for music and physical education, which was the main complaint last time, if I recally correctly. Someone, however, recently complained that the article doesn't cover enough of the latter day Japanese scene, and it looks like we'd need Japanese-language sourcing to cover that aspect. Which could obviously be another large headache. bridies (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't realize that it failed at FAC—I didn't even remember that it'd been nominated. It's a strong article as-is, but I see why 1b complaints might be raised. Well, if you ever expand the article for another go at FAC, hit me up and I'll copyedit the new content. (And I'll make sure that I work faster than I did the first time.) I know you're not super active on Wikipedia anymore, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmyBlackwing:I might take you up on that, if I can ever get unblocked and be allowed to add things to Wiki again. ;) bridies (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Calidum 03:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for resumption of edit warring on same page (Red Dead Redemption) after expiration of last block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bridies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not edit warring, and have made exactly 1 revert today (fewer than Calidum). My first edit (reverted), was not the same as the lst "edit war": I compromised by removing the mention from the infobox and instead added a couple of sentences to the prose (the latest editor on talk said he had no problem with the cat, let alone a prose mention; merely the infobox). My next edit (after Calidum's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629938426&oldid=629935236 first revert, with a crass threat) compromised further by not adding the cat and added merely the prose mentions. The Calidum reverted wholesale, yet again. I am the one compromising here; Calidum is the one reverting wholesale (more reverts than me today). There is nothing on the talk page about the prose mentions, no one has objected to them, and that entire paragraph is about similar themes. People have argued against the infobox mentions and the category, neither of which I added in the last edit. It should have been uncontroversial, and was not a revert; I have been blocked before I could even point this out to Calidum. Calidum also made that last revert without even a talk page reply. I should be unblocked, as I have done nothing wrong, and Calidum should be boomerang-ed bridies (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a perfect example of the "D" part of WP:BRD. Resumption of any similar edits to ones that led to an original EW blocks is considered to be a continuation of the same edit war. after the block expired, it was your responsibility to return to the discussion, and make no further edits to the article until consensus had been reached. Note also that the definition of edit war is clear: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion" - this is exactly what you're doing. Nobody wants you indeffed (at least nobody that I know of). What the project needs is discussion to reach consensus - yeah, that means that sometimes your desired edits won't make the final cut. Just because you're waiting for the next step in discussion, it does not mean "go ahead and make an edit" because Wikipedia has no time limit. If you intend to appeal this block again, please read WP:GAB, WP:AAB and WP:NOTTHEM first the panda ₯’ 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Revert 1, Revert 2. 45 minutes apart. -- Calidum 05:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In point of fact, you made three reverts, not two. The number isn't terribly important. Resumption of reverts almost immediatley after expiration of a block for breaching 3RR on the same page is sufficient to block. One is often enough. It demonstrates that you have not learned anything from your last block and that a pattern of disruptive conduct continues. If you keep up this denial, you will end up being blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:I made one revert. The others are different edits, simply, and had significantly different content. I am amazed that you have not even admonished Calidum, whose sole modus operandi is to tag-team revert while saying "discuss on talk", while, in fact, refusing to discuss on talk (still waiting on a reply to my last argument, which again is about the cat, not the prose edits; the other antagonist, who has cited nothing but an essay, and not a single source, has asked me to "please just stop" citing anything on talk). Seriously, get fucked User:Bbb23, I dare you to indef-me. It would be an amazing testament to Wiki's (and it's admins') contempt for good content contributers if I was indef-ed over this garbage. bridies (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert occurred on 16 October at 16:10 when you added the clone material to the body and restored the clone cat. The second revert was on 17 October at 03:03 when you reverted Hahnchen. The third revert was on 17 October at 03:44 when you restored the material to the body. If you think that a revert is only when your edit is an exact undo of another editor, you really need to familiarize yourself with the policy because that is completely wrong. As for indeffing you, that was both a warning and advice. It is standard to impose escalating blocks for similar misconduct, so I'm trying - without success - to let you know that you won't help yourself if you persist. Finally, don't be distracted by what you perceive to be misconduct by other editors. If you adjust your own conduct, the other problems will take care of themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:Garbage. I am not labouring under the impression that as long as the edit is not exactly the same it is not a revert; it is not a revert if it's a compromised version, and certainly not if it's a completely different edit. None of my edits added the term to the infobox, which is the only thing there is anything like a consensus against. My final edit added only the prose. No one has mentioned the prose, so how can it have been controversial? Don't presume to offer me advice; who are you to do so? Go back to adding bigger numbers to your "admin stats". bridies (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "helping myself", recall that Wikipedia works thus: I give my time and skills, for free, to add new content and improve content (I used to give a hell of a lot of it; and I still give a decent amount). It's not me who loses anything from being blocked. bridies (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let this place get to you for too long. There's too much work to be done to lose good editors like you. Please come back before long. -Thibbs (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor bites the dust. Though I had little interaction with you, from what I heard, you do great work. Keep up the faith and if you do come back soon, I would welcome you wholeheartedly but if not, I don't blame you. I wish you the best of luck in your retirement. Vaya con Dios! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come back soon? This guy was a complete troll. He engaged in several edit wars that I witnessed and created many false reports. I speak for many when I say "good riddance." 71.89.130.87 (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahaha. No idea who you are, but it seems about 1/8th of your two dozen or so contributions are reverting me. On talk pages. And that you are (still) sufficiently pissed at me to now make me the only user to have received a talk page comment from you. Ok then. Amazing. bridies (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I have seen you around on video game related articles from time to time and figured since you do good work you might give me some pointers on good habits to keep in maintaining video game related articles. PASTYL-FLO (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated ToeJam & Earl for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JAGUAR  12:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bridies, long time no see. Sorry to hear about the demotions—unfair, to say the least. As for holding onto GA status, I'm not 100% sure what the procedure is, but I think the article would need a separate GAR after the FAR to be demoted from GA. If it doesn't work that way, that's a confusing choice on Wikipedia's part. I also poked around for guidelines on this issue and found nothing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've read my edit summaries, but just in case, do not post to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Talk page with a capital "T"? An editor of serious consequence no doubt. 129857 edits. 129857. How much added content, how many GAs and/or FAs have you created? And how many you've prevented, who knows? I was only nostalgic and on the site (there's a correlation between those 2) and poking fun; an editor of your stature can surely take it in his/her stride (and you were hardly the only factor in that last sentence, but still). Also, one posts on, not to, a page, by the way (I charge for this sort of info IRL; so take it as a gesture of goodwill). Peace, and have a proverbial pint on me (my talk page, can't refuse it. So there.) bridies (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]