User talk:AnOddName/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:AnOddName. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Talkback, 02:47, 16 November 2009

Amador Valley High School

Hello,

I have addressed all of your listed concerns with the article Amador Valley High School. Do you have any more suggestions on how to make the article better? If not, do you feel like you have looked over the article enough to give it your verdict? Thank you - Deltawk (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Compliment time

		The Reviewers Award
		Thanks for your input and work at FAC - keep it up. RB88 (T) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely second this! Thank you very much for your help at FAC. It has been much appreciated. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A tricky question of “myth”

Hi,

I am getting in contact with you after noting your contribution to the neutral point of view policy article and have done this due to an issue that I’ve raised in the talk page of another article that may require outside help to resolve.

The discussion has now stretched way beyond 10,000 words (with me providing more than my share) and that has made its way past a third courtesy break. I guess it all depends whether the following issue is one, time permitting, with which you would like to become involved.

I’ve raised issue regarding the title of the article “Creation myth” after seeing the talk page notice which claimed: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy... . I did not think that this was the case and began the related discussion. It’s got quite a charged on both sides at times and, amongst other things, I’ve taken the view that some of the editors may want to bring the issue to a swift conclusion. A full review of all the issues mentioned would be appreciated but, not knowing when you may see this message or which other editors may have taken an interest in this topic, it may be worthwhile to make an initial check of the current state of the discussion so as to check the current state of the debate.

I do not personally hold any religious faith and yet considered the neutrality issues that I perceived to have been raised by the article title to be worth tackling, I realise that this is an issue that I have personally raised and, finally, I don’t have any expectation of outside involvement and just mention this in case this issue may also be of interest for you.

regards

Gregkaye (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at the Creation myth topic. I still find it difficult to see how the title can be considered to be neutral but maybe that's something I may have to live with.

Gregkaye (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa FAC

Can you please strike all concerns if you feel they are fixed. Thank you, CTJF83 chat 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Since I'm new to FACs, do I specifically need people to support the FA, or just people that don't oppose it? CTJF83 chat 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What do I need for your support then? CTJF83 chat 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely rare for me to fully support (i.e., support on all criteria) any article, even short ones, unless I'm really familiar with the subject matter and I have no doubt that any major detail is missing or noticeably wrong (Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo is one example). I don't usually give partial supports, but I like what I see in terms of comprehensiveness, so I think I'll support on criteria 1b for now. --an odd name (help honey) 00:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the support. I think you're a little confused about the cuisine and NYC comparison. CTJF83 chat 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire

Hi, AnOddName; do you know if you could review that article when you can? It's just, as you know, the FAC was restarted, so I don't want it to close because of lack of comments/supports. Thanks even if you can't. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

external media

Dear editor

Your edit didn't make sense. The images are decorative and provide no link to any useful information. If you think else please do provide at least a useful description when adding alt text. Greeting Wandalstouring (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page; please check there. --an odd name 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale

Yes, sorry. I thought that was your talk page haha :) Decodet (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

FA

I'd just like to say "thank you" for helping me with The Kinks' FAC. You do great work over there! I'm still new to FAs, so I must admit that I'm rather unfamiliar with all aspects of the process (it reminds me of a very intense peer review or essay defense). Hope you have a good day/night - I.M.S. (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bayonetta was ported

To answer your question, yes, Bayonetta was ported. Ref 19's fourth paragraph says (with emphasis added),

With Bayonetta, we created the Xbox 360 version of the game first, and then handed off all the data and other assets to SEGA so they could begin the process of porting Bayonetta to the PS3, giving them advice regarding the porting process along the way and overseeing the progress to ensure that the PS3 version would be the best it could be.
—attributed to Tatsuya Minami, President & CEO of Platinum Games

Platinum's site has a lot of development videos, anecdotes, and such on that game; I always like such openness, even if it's just promotional. --an odd name 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey an odd name,

Thanks for your speedy reply. I am surprised to see it is in fact a port, with both versions coming out at the same time and all. Thanks, and happy editing! --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)