User talk:Masem/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is a Farce regarding GamerGate Controversy Article[edit]

So what are you doing to fix it? So far the project looks so bad I would avoid employing or associating with anyone who claims to be a Wikipedia editor or an administrator. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is becoming a dystopia[edit]

     Hello, I am a new(old) user, who also commented on Red Pen of Doom's AE hearing(as an ip). I was watching this GG shenanigans for a while. As an editor, I have no further intention of editing the article. But I could not help but notice the draconian administrative actions taken to the people who tried to contribute. That is why I am writing this to you. During the AE hearing, I saw AllMyEasterEggs also sharing his opinion. This user later banned by an admin due to him being a ban evading sock-puppet account. When I checked his user page I saw that he was indeed banned for being a sock-puppet. But in his original account, AugustRemembrancer reason for being banned is explained, again, as sock-puppetry. The user adamantly rejects this claim and challenges them to produce the other account which he is the sock-puppet of. Ironically, last time he challenged the ban, it seems his second account was counted as the sock-puppet evidence of the first.

     If this ban had happened to me, as a new user who doesn't know the correct procedure, I would have opened a new account too, which would make me guilty of the crime I did not commit. I urge you to investigate this situation because this seems to me a core injustice and it is against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Bear in mind that I do not know this user, not even talked to him in any way. I am not related to any gamergate activity, just a person with a lot of free time lately. I am telling this to you, because I don't like the way Wikipedia is heading. (help me Obi-Wan you're my only hope:))And to tell the truth, I am a bit intimidated by the way they treated to this user. I know you are an involved admin, and probably can't do anything administrative-wise, or maybe you looked at it and concluded, as other admins, that he is indeed really a duck.(hah, wikilaw reference, I must be a sock(that rhymed, yea I'm weird)) But at least my conscience will be clear, for I perceive this to be part of a pattern of great injustices, and if continued, it will be the doom of the project known as the Wikipedia. Sorry for a rather long comment, Cheers!

PS: The only "proof" that is presented to him leading to his ban, is that he knows too much about wikilaws and he adjusted his user page. Well, I am digging through wiki policies and guidelines, and created a talk page similar to his, yet this is the first time that I do this. Darwinian Ape (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit- those links do not belong to my comment.

Hello Darwinian Ape, and thanks for sharing this post on this topic and bringing this case to attention. I'm not sure "dystopian" is exactly the best word to characterize this trend but also find it troublesome and my take on it is similar to yours. Tangentially, if you w/could, do help return proper talk page procedure there. Chrisrus (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit- Separated this thread from those links.

Yes, I should admit, that the title was a bit dramatic. But this ban was not an isolated incident, assuming the worst in new users who edit this article has become the norm, while established users getting a pat on the back for their un-wikipedialike behaviors. Only way not to be banned in that topic, I'm afraid, is to completely agree with those editors. Darwinian Ape (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't participated much lately on that GG article talk page, but I doubt you could find a singular point of view among editors who contribute there. There are editors with a variety of perspectives and levels of experience (from many years to just a few months) editing this article. I don't know if there is a bias against new editors but there have been many newly created accounts over the past 9 months who appear and have caused disruption because they are not familiar with Wikipedia's policy on consensus. And although there are dozens of pages of talk page archives, new editors are not inclined to do a search and see if a question/subject has already been discussed before. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a problem with BITEing to an extent, I have to agree with Liz here. I think I've at some point or another disagreed with anyone who has commented more than 3 times on GGC talk page, and they haven't banned me for it (yet). Bosstopher (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bosstopher There is a distinction to be made between the treatment of new and old users. While I understand the practicality in suspecting from a new user, this is the exact opposite the Wikipedia wants it's users to conduct themselves when dealing with new users. I am not talking about the obvious trolls that can be spotted from a mile, the case I presented is a prime example of how the new users who dare to make suggestions -constructive ones at that, once you inspect the nature of them- to the talk page are banned with extreme prejudice. From my understanding, it's not even against wiki policy to create multiple accounts, which is the only crime this user is accused of. Even if, as Liz stated, (edit: implied would be more accurate) there are new users with malicious intent,(which I don't doubt there are) WP:NOSPADE and WP:AGF should be in full effect here to protect innocent new users who are expectedly unaware of policies. Especially when they see a topic of their interest seemingly misrepresented in Wikipedia, and decided to chime in. The new rule of 500/30 restriction will solve new users being banned like this by giving them De-facto topic ban, but also hinder the project, and while I admit this is a speculation, I wouldn't be surprised to see the users who met the qualifications but against the narrative, be treated worse and worse. This is a slippery slope. Darwinian Ape (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, you are allowed to operate multiple accounts but you must be accountable for these. Most people that have multiple accounts will voluntarily state "I may also post under X and Y" on their user page, making it clear. Those that silently run multiple accounts and found to be using the account to work against wikipolicy will be subject to community determined restrictions, depending on the severity of the issue. In the above case, the user was found by someone with CheckUser authority to have had previous accounts (that appear to have already been banned) but did not state this when asked, and as such, that's pretty much a ban again for sockpuppet block evasion. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, as I said I don't know whether he is lying or not, nor do I have any information on checkuser search, just that his position seemed genuine and desperate. And not to pester you further, but to clarify: Is this CheckUser search revealed any account other than AugustRemembrancer and AllMyEasterEggs because if not, that may have been a misunderstanding on the part of the admin. Darwinian Ape (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if the admin that ran the checkuser found any other accounts beyond those two (it would be something that can be discussed via the tool). Checkuser results - outside of the purposes of checking for sockpuppets - are generally kept private say to the degree to determine what action to be done. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. So if the case is that this user was first suspected of being a sockpuppet and banned,(the banning admin's remarks on AugustRemembrancer's talk page indicate the admin is only suspected he is a sock.) later he opened another account, and subsequently kicked for being a sockpuppet(this time correctly but on the basis of the first account's ban.) Then he realized(upon advices given to him in his second acc's talk page) he should have pursued the first account. He does that and an uninformed admin makes a CheckUser search and finds out the applicant has two account both banned and concludes the ban is justified. (I hope your brain doesn't hurt by now, mine is.)
I know I am wasting your time and mine by defending someone that may or may not be lying and, its not a court, and he isn't given a capital punishment(well, for wiki he is) but if this kind of willy nilly banning becomes systemic, it can be damaging to wikipedia much more than a user with sockpuppets. Darwinian Ape (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinian Ape, as I understand the restrictions (and I'm not an admin), one by-product of the restriction is that new editors edit less divisive articles, learn about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then in few weeks, they can venture into the GamerGate controversy. This is preferable to them diving in to GG, making some really common mistakes, edit warring and getting indefinitely blocked or topic banned. GG is NOT a good article to learn about how Wikipedia operates, it has too much baggage. I believe that new editors have a contribution to make but let them get a little experience before stepping into a minefield. Also, admins and editors want to see that a new account isn't a SPA account and has other interests besides editing one particular article. A month is not a long time in the Wikipedia world as there is no deadline. The article will still be here in four weeks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against the new restrictions that were placed upon the article, in fact I said it will solve the problem of new users getting banned for mistakes, had they done in other articles, would not have get them banned. But I also believe the project will take a blow from not having as much as different viewpoints. This could have been prevented had the more experienced users treated newbies with the same attitude that is expected in any other article of Wikipedia. Newbies are newbies, they(We) will make mistakes. That is why we assume good faith. Personally, I will not touch the article itself or its talk page with a ten foot pole. But that doesn't mean the people who do should be banned just for doing so. Darwinian Ape (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, If the reasoning is in part to determine if accounts are WP:SPAs or not; what actions are proposed for accounts that are found to be SPAs? If "no action", then why do we care if the accounts are SPAs? If "action", then why are those actions not being taken to address the current SPAs[1][2][3] Appreciate any insight you might offer. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article so poorly that it motivates newcomers to edit is a reflection of the quality of editing. for all the complaints about Arbcom, they got it right to break up the cabal. Complaining about new editors motivated to join a new community is not nearly as bad as experienced editors that created WP:DUCK sock/spa accounts solely for editing their POV into the article. Some had their "first" edits at Arbcom in December/January and only just met 500 edits in their new incarnation in the last month (over 500 hedits, less than 50 to mainspace). Why a SPA editor with barely 500 edits, only to gamerGate, and less than 50 mainspace edits is preferred over a passionate new editor is a dystopian version of the project. Which is more probelmatic? How about reset the 500 limit to before the ArbCom case so all editors involved could be scrutinized and we'll see who stays. --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

gif[edit]

Regarding this which I thought would better convey the commentary I explained on the article that it was placed on than any image. I was wondering if there were any policies against gifs? Jhenderson 777 15:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: Gifs should obviously be small and short enough to show what the animation intended, so sizewise I think you're fine. But you need to be able to explain from an NFC standpoint how the animation is critical to the readers understanding of the article. Having not played the PT demo but knowing the situation with it, I'm not 100% sure here, the article is lacking such necessary information: I get the gist from text that there are horror elements, ghosts, and strange events that happen and that you play from an first-person perspective, but that's all text stuff. You need to be able to say why this particular segment of gameplay is crticial to see. I don't know what the answer is for that. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure either. This source elaborates that this is Lisa's first full time appearance and that is one of the most terrifying moments. Although that doesn't explain gif over image. My reasoning of why I chose the gif over the image is to explain to the readers that all the player can do is sometimes do the opposite of what he wants to do and has no choice but to move further along to the ghost in that particular scene. Perhaps I can explain that better? I should note that a comment made by Rapunzel-bellflower (talk · contribs) here led me to ask you the question of the policies of gifs. I know you as an expert of this kind of stuff. Jhenderson 777 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhenderson777: Again, not having played it but knowing the gist, if you can find sources that say this specific moment was one of the scariest in the game, in part that you could only progress forward to something you knew was bad, that would be reason to include the animation. So I would focus on trying to find sources to support that specific scene and the nature of gameplay/horror, as to better justify the image. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So in short. Fair use Jifs CAN be acceptable on Wikipedia if they justify the guidelines of NFC? Jhenderson 777 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhenderson777: Yes, in general , Gifs aren't disallowed, but consider that we do discourage animation only in that some people have slow connections, that people print out pages so they become static frames, as well as it being larger-than-type fair use. You need to be able to show to a degree of why showing the animation is necessary over, say, showing a screenshot, and for that, it is best to use sources that discuss the visual direction of that scene and the like. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

WP:NPOV - Facts vs opinions[edit]

Hi Masem, I've noticed the questions that you raised at WT:NPOV, and thought that some of the discussion between myself & another editor at this Talk page might be apopos.

I'll try to put something together for the WT:NPOV discussion, but at a high level I think:

  • WP:NPOV requires that we: not state opinions as facts; not state contested assertions as facts (especially where the Article deals with the disagreements around those assertions); err on the side of treating things as opinions.
  • WP:NPOV is not able to be consensus-ed or WP:IARed around; This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
  • WP:RS standard for reliably sourcing opinions of the authors is manifestly lower than that for the same authors (or publishers) as sources of fact.
  • when covering a disagreement or controversy (especially a polarised dispute), we should include all points of view, attributed.
  • popularity does not make opinions facts.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Power-gig-drum-controller.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Power-gig-drum-controller.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Powergig-guitar-promoimage.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Powergig-guitar-promoimage.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit]

Leigh Alexander (journalist)[edit]

Just posting this to ya since I don't want anything to do with GamerGate articles and you're a saint for still putting up with them. Have a feeling that there may be some bias there but that's just me. GamerPro64 00:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkness[edit]

Would The Darkness game be considered an open world game? ThanksECW28 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, while you can travel between various parts of the world map, it's not open world, but mostly to revisit sections. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - reliable v usable[edit]

Hi Masem, Apologies for the interruption. I was intrigued by some of the discussions at WT:NPOV. Would it be possible for you to provide a quick ("25 words or less") run down on why the sources that I mentioned have been rejected as "unusable"? I'm finding it hard to believe that author's writings / columnist's opinion columns aren't "reliable" for verifying those opinions. Thanks in advance for any insight that you can offer. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are not usable/reliable here, but they have been excluded by discussion on the talk page as fringe opinions from poor RSes (llike Brierbart) I don't agree with this and that's part of the overall issue. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the quick response; I genuinely appreciate it. The "WP:FRINGE because not WP:RS" and "not WP:RS because WP:FRINGE" line of thought seems disappointingly like circular reasoning. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And I have a hard time in a situtaion when we are talking about a group as a notable topic that their veiws, or opinion pieces that reflect their views, can even be called fringe positions with respect to that group. (Other factors, like on video game journalism, absolutely,). --MASEM (t) 22:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi @Masem:, I found your knowledgeable comments here and would like to ask...

I've been working on an article about a technology company, and I'm looking at the logo updated for the ForgeRock article.

I would like to do the same (put a logo in the infobox like this), but I haven't uploaded images.

Do I need to get the company's permission to use their logo? What should I do?

Thanks, Justapersona(Come talk!) 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to get permission to use a logo from anyone. Except in cases where the logo is "simple" per the Threshold of originality, we'd tag the image as non-free, meaning we're using as fair use with additional restrictions for Wikipedia, as defined at WP:NFCC. Using the logo to identify a notable company as the lead or infobox image on an article about that company is an allowable use for this. When you upload the logo via the Upload File wizard (link on the left of the WP page screen), you'll want to mark its use as the non-free logo of a company, and fill in all the appropriate fields as described on the wizard page, and then you will be set.
That said, you do have an option if you want to try to contact the company to get permission to use the logo under free licensing terms, as described at WP:CONSENT. This is absolutely not required and probably should only be done if you have previous contact with the company. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Talk Question[edit]

It's been a while since I read the full thread at NPOV, but does your question regarding us looking at non-RS affect WP: LABEL? As in whether or not we use non-RS to determine if the label being used is contentiuos. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyohyi: Yes, it is certainly related to the use of labels generated from RSes. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Fang Zhi Xing[edit]

Hello! I suspect that when (sadly) the true death toll becomes known, there will be a great number of visits to Sinking of the Dong Fang Zhi Xing. I created the sinking article, while you created the original ship article that you later merged with "my" article. Please, help me watch the categories. This was NOT a maritime incident (at sea), and it is about a shipWRECK, not about a ship. Thanks for your help! There could be a lot of good faith but not helpful edits when the death toll hits the wire. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelh2001: Please continue to make any fixes as needed to categories, etc. as I noted on the talk page, my area is not normally shipwrecks but I say this being a major news story and copy/pasted from an existing shipwreck (which likely was a maritime shipwreck, hence why the term lingered). --MASEM (t) 21:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've reverted the link that I added to the article. The definition of "maritime" that you're using is very narrow and you probably should look at the term "maritime transport" which is defined as "the shipment of goods (cargo) and people by sea and other waterways." I'm not going to try to restore the link but I do suggest that you bring the matter up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Shipwrecks talk pages. Shinerunner (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Sinking of the Dong Fang Zhi Xing[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 04:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rock Band 4 logo.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rock Band 4 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on[edit]

'Islam', 'feminism', 'veganism', etc., are not each composed of a single individual believer, and it is anti-scientific to believe otherwise. 'Veganism' cannot be found guilty of eco-terrorism, though certainly a subset of adherents can be, and so on. Good point to make.[1] 108.52.24.214 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves correctly, 108.52.24.214 was Gamergate's official catspaw IP assigned to take out The Red Pen of Doom by filing an AE complaint in a manner that would prevent any BOOMERANG. The owner of this page, being an expert on Gamergate planning boards, likely knows this, but casual readers might not. We're seeing a lot of IP editors in the Gamergate space suddenly, it seems. Perhaps someone ought to make a scorecard? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Bernstein can't read a diff or follow a simple contribution history, he attacks the IP and attacks Masem, who's contributed more to the encyclopedia than he could ever hope you. How long will the project tolerate this disruption? 104.156.240.150 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are way off the mark. 63.153.218.127 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100% verifiably false. Sad to see such an eloquent and witty writer squander these talents on inanities, character attacks, and conspiracies. I wish you the best. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&type=revision&diff=666868045&oldid=666844828

Pre-dated painting stamp.[edit]

At [4] the stamp image of a pre-dated painting is being challenged as an unfree file. Please add your comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR[edit]

Not sure why you asked Gronky to respect the 1RR, they seem to only have one revert. However, that was your second revert. The first was this partial revert to add pack in the bit about alienating readers. Not a big deal as obviously the lede is always hard to get consensus for changes, but do be careful. — Strongjam (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working out concensus[edit]

My last edit was indeed bad. It changed too many things, it was bound to find opposition.

I don't think exclusively talking on the Talk page is a way to make progress here. When I originally explained the problem, it was clear from the replies that most people couldn't see what I was talking about. But then when I edited the intro I got good feedback. Most of my edits will be to the Talk page, but I think an occasional edit to the article is helpful to show concretely what people are talking about or proposing.

So far I've made no reverts. Rhoark reverted me and gave his reason on Talk. I took his point into consideration (replying on Talk) and made a new edit with my old text plus his idea. I'll make one or two further modified proposals then give up. Gronky (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you post your recommend change on the talk page first, and then have it reviewed, instead of editing the article live. It's better to avoid getting into any editing issue wars. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gronky, I haven't looked at the edits themselves, and have no opinion on the changes; but I think per WP:REVERT, Reverting does not always use the undo tool. Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion, the reinsertion of the old text still counts. Of course, no other "revert" so no issues with the 1RR. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm pretty sure my actions don't count as a revert. The other person reverted and gave their objection, I proposed a new version to address that objection, they said something like "Ok, that looks good" and then I put the new version on the page. So, rather than negating the effects of their edit, I actually did their work for them. Either way, I'll keep it in mind in the future. Gronky (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

Mainstream news is too antiquated for you?[edit]

How do you justify claiming that there is "no real importance" to a pre-release item on any game by a mainstream news programme? Any computer game can get mentioned on gaming sites, but being mentioned on a mainstream news programme is reserved for games that look like they may be some sort of cultural landmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CivilizationAce (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they just showed a couple of segments without commenting on it, that's not encyclopedic. Just appearing on a news show is trivial. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you deleted the comment about the segments without having seen them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CivilizationAce (talk • contribs) 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Sinister' - Harassment on Wikipedia News Piece[edit]

@Masem: Hi there. I posted the below on [Wales talk page.]

Please see a link to a news video I have made about sinister goings on here on Wikipedia. Episode 4 - Sinister

I am a journalist and blogger. I run my own website and I have also, from time to time, sourced stories for papers such as the Daily Mail. I am studying a Master's Degree in law combined with a solicitor's certificate. I have spent a lot of time representing vulnerable people and their families in Court pro-bono. In fact I was praised in the British Parliament by then Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming for my legal skills representing a vulnerable woman - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140113/petntext/140113p0001.htm

My coverage of the recent ArbCom case on Grant Shapps and Richard Symonds was the source of articles in almost every UK national publication - http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=1634 . My work was also directly cited by Breitbart - http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/10/shapps-case-raises-questions-for-wikipedia-and-the-guardian/

There is likely to be ongoing coverage of Mark Bernstein's conduct on the English language Wikipedia. If Bernstein's conduct and that of his supporters goes unchecked it is likely to seriously damage the project's reputation.

I recognize that Mr Bernstein believes that he is the victim of anonymous GamerGate misogynist harassers. Fairly obviously I am no such thing, being open about my identity (which is on my user page) and also having been praised for my equalities work.

Hope that was of interest. Vordrak (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about non-free rationale[edit]

Could you please explain me why SL Benfica logo.svg can only be used in S.L. Benfica (archived review) and FC Barcelona (crest).svg can be used in multiple articles? SLBedit (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FC Barcelona should not be used in that many articles, either. It fails WP:NFC#UUI#18 regarding logo use. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean 17? SLBedit (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, was going off top of head. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your professionalism in the GamerGate controversy article[edit]

I know you've been criticized by people from both sides of the issue, but from the talk page, you seem to practically be the only editor that has not attempted to soapbox for whatever side of the issue you're on. Just thought you might like to know that it's appreciated by at least some people. --Bionic86 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your AE request[edit]

I made a small edit to your recent AE request. Please revert if it displeases you. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Starke Hathaway: Thanks, I just couldn't find where it was spelled out despite looking all over the AE pages. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Obergefell v. Hodges[edit]

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On article talk page?[edit]

Please provide diffs of where I called PtF a "sock" on the article talk page. I don't think I have as my complaint has always been use of SPA accounts in ways not embraced by WP:SPA. I don't think I ever use the term "sock" (there is a difference). None of PtF's diffs are from the article talk. --DHeyward (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward I do apologize and made a statement to that at AE. I still have concerns using "SPA" accusations on article talk pages when the evidence is not clear and that should be handled in the same way as sock accusations (eg at admin boards). --MASEM (t) 02:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I think the only places are either admin talk pages or admin boards. Obvious alternate accounts (sock or SPA) are generally forbidden from those spaces. My complaint is being brought to boards and accused of misbehavior by accounts that are WP:DUCK obviously not new. I have no history of their behaviour yet mine is ten years old. No one has disagreed with WP:DUCK analyses. If I had created an account in December and used it only for GG, it would be an even playing field. But alas it is not. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You have the patience of a saint and the tenacity of a honey badger. —Torchiest talkedits 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! Dealing with certain personality types can be a real headache, as I know from experience. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice[edit]

Hi. I debated whether to email this but I decided that here others may learn from it. I'd like to ask for your advice on dealing with conflict generally and vicious users, specifically. People who make personal attacks and assume bad faith etc. I am awful at dealing with all of that. You seem like an expert at it. Perhaps that is just how you naturally are but I'm hoping it's something that can be learned. Thank you. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2015[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2015, the project has:

Content

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

Misplaced inquiry on your User page[edit]

Hey, Masem. An editor accidentally left a comment for you at your User page instead of your Talk page back on June 19th. Not sure if you noticed it or not since it's still there. HMS Werewolf (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of journics in ethalism[edit]

Hi,

just an accountless nobody ... who is sorry to disturb your summer vacation ... but I notice that events that reflect positively on Gamergate and those that reflect negatively are treated somewhat differently. To quote: "That seems to be another one of those "I sense that this isolated, anomalous statement by some random person actually speaks for a huge number of others that I now claim are as significant as those who have spoken again and again." " Applied to some single isolated twitter threat? Sure, this is all Gamergate is. Applied to "Gamergate is about ethics in journalism"? Balderdash. One lone voice. Who speaks for Gamergate? Nobody knows. We only know that one utterance represents all of Gamergate if it is really bad for Gamergate. Is there principle behind this? If so, what? If not, what should it be?

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Notification[edit]

Not sure if it's required to notify the evil leader of the Armies of Mordor, but I am extending the courtesy anyway. I mentioned you whom must not be name in a statement and request on Gamaliel's talk page. (need to emphasize page lest a month conspiracy erupts). I couldn't decide if you were Voldemort, Sauron, unknown master gaming villain #42 or perhaps a potential Hugo award novel focusing on the forerunners of the Bene Tleilax and a master Tleilaxu using your Spice derived powers to create Ghola armies of anonymous accounts or resurrecting Face Dancer old accounts in an effort to create the Axlotl tanks - the ultimate repression of females in the all male Tleilaxu society. From now on, I think all your future Axlotl meat puppets should be named Duncan Idaho for storyline continuity. For TPS, this is 'humour.' In no way am I advocating that Masem, or any of his evil Masem alts mentioned above, should create anything from an Axlotl tank. Oh, and Masem doesn't have any alts that I am aware of. Or an Axlotl tank but I have not seen his basement and cannot rule it out. You can delete if you think some people may not grasp the dry humor. --DHeyward (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dry humor? I imagine those tanks are wet; that’s why they call them “tanks”. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but Arrakis was a dry place. — Strongjam (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkBernstein: I can only imagine you've read the entire series, so your comment is dry in two senses rather than the obvious ("tank") one. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, we agree (though if we skipped the debate about whether they were tanks at all, we probably both lost the argument). First sci fi book I read was A Wrinkle in Time. It was in grade school and was the first book that mI realized I wasn't the only one working out thought problems in the nature of the universe. Wasn't until I was an adult that someone pointed out it was a "girl's book.' Glad they didn't mention that at the time. I had to go back because I didn't even remeber the gender of the characters, just the sciency fiction and the new ideas and thought experiments. I probably should read more by that author. I read the entire Dune series (lost interest in the post-Frank Herbert versions so they don't count) as an adult after my Horatio Hornblower phase (which followed the historical Tokugawa shogunate phase inspired by James Clavell). . The original Dune I read years before that (before the David Lynch butchered it. Everyone else complained about the plot being hard to follow while I was complaining about the stuff he invented that wasn't in the book. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I was pinged of that comment as I think it was linked in via username. I'm aware of the statement, but don't think I need to speak to that as the situation is something else entirely at the moment. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I wasn't expecting a response but hoping to break some of the ice that has formed. Despite whatever disagreements exist on the talk page, at heart we're all intellectual dorks. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shattered (Star Trek: Voyager), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: GameSpot issue[edit]

I've been on the GameSpot forums, asked the question and received a reply. It was GameSpot itself that created the issue. It was part of GameSpot's self-defensive measures against malicious adware which were ripping and re-hoasting it for their own ad usage. They were also concerned about its impact on their search engine optimization. It's just that their anti-ripping efforts worked too well. But it seems it will not last. To quote the staff member who answered my question: "We can adjust for archive.org." --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, and that would make sense. Make sure they also get webcite too as whitelisted. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned it. We'll just have to wait and see. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Well that's nice to hear. And what about Giant Bomb? GamerPro64 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

Talk: Robin Williams[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I altered the header you put in for that "he was murdered" anon. The newspaper's name is "National Enquirer". (You had it spelled as "National Inquirer".) Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mlp fim comic issue 1 cover.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mlp fim comic issue 1 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mpconlogo.png[edit]

Would this be pd-textlogo? – czar 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar Yes: the simple balanced gradient is not sufficient for artistic originality. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail for you[edit]

Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Kyohyi (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate: Sourcing.[edit]

Hey there fellow wiki editor.

I recently looked at the GamerGate page and noticed that the edits you have made to the page lacked proper sourcing. The reason why sourcing is a necessity on sites like Wikipedia or on the Internet in general is to prevent rumours and the spreading of false information. I hope you can appreciate that seeing how we live in the Information Era.

Kind regards, raxiam 

Raxiam (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Sorry, blamed the wrong guy. Shouldn't have jumped to the gun as quickly as I did.

A flak jacket for you![edit]

A flak jacket for you!
While I don't agree with everything you do, you get far more flak thrown your way than you deserve. You are a reasonably okayish guy, and clearly not the sinister mastermind you've been painted as in the past. How quickly your alleged minions walk their way into topic bans is evidence enough to prove that. Carry on being reasonably okayish and use the jacket wisely! Apologies for the world's most half-hearted wikilove message. Brustopher (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

YGM[edit]

Sent you a mail re: the journal article. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Revision 673699478 on Gamergate_controversy[edit]

What you said about "All sources call it a culture war..." is not simply not true.

These are just two references in the article I randomly found that describes with the word "subculture".

(170) http://boingboing.net/2014/12/31/how-imageboard-culture-shaped.html

(119) http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/17/gamergate_threats_why_it_s_so_hard_to_prosecute_the_people_targeting_zoe.html

Hengsheng120 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, when you do a Google News search, "Gamergate 'culture war'" gets 372 hits vs "Gamergate 'subculture war'" getting 1. And most cases they are talking about a broad culture war, not one just that is confided to the VG industry. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New gamergate-related article[edit]

Hi, since you have been so involved in the whole Gamergate thing (about which I know almost nothing) I thought you might know what should be done with the newly created page GamerGhazi. Everymorning talk 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Everymorning: I've nominated for deletion. The only sources dealing with the subreddit are links to reddit itself. — Strongjam (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi Strongjam, I've !voted there. Looked for CSD criteria that might apply, but only "duplicates existing page" seemed likely; there are, however, some aspects that are not included in the main Gamergate controversy page, which (if verifiable) should be merged there. I'm looking at cleaning out the obvious WP:BLP issues. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portal Stories: Mel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

RFC notification 1 August 2015[edit]

Hi. Since you participated in an earlier discussion on the same issue on the same page, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RFC: “Common selection criteria” ambiguity. If you choose to reply to this notice, please do so on my Talk page. (Don’t worry, my IP address is static.) Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate AfD notice[edit]

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Survival game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DayZ. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

No Man's Sky
added a link pointing to Fast Company
Procedural generation
added a link pointing to Fast Company

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Your reversions are adding up. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: What does policy say about templating experienced editors? With adminship comes the expectation one's familiar with the rules they're enforcing. Missteps are expected, it's important to recognize and learn from them. Best of luck. 177.154.145.107 (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, IP177, I probably should have written a personal message. It was mainly intended to alert Masem he was at 3 reverts, not as a threat. But reading it now, this template does seem heavy-handed. Liz Read! Talk! 15:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting mistakes takes an empathy and maturity rarely demonstrated by those in authority here or elsewhere, in the outside world. I note that several editors were critical of your admin nomination. Whether their criticisms were unwarranted or taken to heart is no longer relevant - persist in your good judgement and we'll all be better for it. Sincere thanks. 177.154.145.103 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate Source[edit]

This is relevant to your interests - http://gamepolitics.com/2015/08/16/spj-airplay-ethics-side-order-bomb-threats#.VdB5wrJVhBc 77.97.24.152 (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the contribution history of this IP account strongly suggest that it's a dedicated sock of a banned former user. You might want to consider that. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe there is an allegation to be raised please take my IP address to "moon court" or whatever it is you use to maintain your racket Mr Bernstein. In fact, go one better, sue Game Politics.com and James Fudge (an actual journalist, not a blog writer) for publishing about an event your friends attempted to sabotage. Go for it. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for working out how pictures of MoMA exhibitions should be handled. Even if the picture might not be replaced any time soon, I'm very glad you took the time to look it up and the kindness to explain it. Furthermore, thank you for all the great work I've seen you do since I joined Wikipedia! You're an inspiration ~Mable (chat) 19:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

999[edit]

Hi there,

I've seen you make quite a few changes to the plot section of Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors (and thanking you along the way). I was just wondering if you were going to work more on the article as a whole. If you are, then I'd just like to mention that myself as well as a few other editors were also going to start working on that article soon, as we're pretty busy with it's sequel, Virtue's Last Reward. We're hoping to get it up to GA status, and then move onto 999. Anyway, regardless of what you say, I just want to properly say thank you for helping with the article.Famous Hobo (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep eyes out for sources but I can still help on 999;; I have not yet played VLR so can't help there. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

Precious again[edit]

games
Thank you, addicted professional gamer, for quality articles such as Thirty Flights of Loving and Ōkami, produced in collaboration, for featured lists and updates, for "promoting Wikipedia at large and keep track of several areas of article improvement and policy", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 951st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for No Man's Sky[edit]

That thing about No Man's Sky was silly. I was reacting on gut instinct (is kneejerk the right word? Gut instinct implies I'm right but that's not what I mean) after I just had the term procedural generation re-explained to me. Accurately even. If that confuses you, seeing as how the explanation was accurate and all, don't worry; I'm slightly confused too.

I admit I was relying on the perception of anonymity and an immediate perception of justification for my actions to, I guess, express frustration with some other qualities of Wikipedia.

I don't like the idea of leaving you without saying that, because Wikipedia is not often very rewarding. And also, I guess I also just want to show in a more sane light that.. without looking at the revert you made, I really was just trying to change the tone of the article with my edit about the flood. I wasn't sure if removing the idea that they were inspired to save the studio by the game was something you or someone else might disagree with or not, I just felt that enough information would be conveyed without that and that we can't necessarily varify the thoughts of the development team. (And also, I just didn't want to be "that IP") 24.20.74.231 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Also I appreciate the patience given that I was cursing 24.20.74.231 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rare Replay logo.png[edit]

Do you consider this PD-ineligible? And if so, do you think it's worth replacing the Rare Replay art with this logo? – czar 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not in the UK (read: it should not be hosted at commons). I would personally play it safe and say it would not be PD ineligible but one might need a second opinion. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (FYI: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rare Replay logo.png) – czar 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Internet phenomena, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nike and Fast Company. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RSN Discussion[edit]

I think we're talking past each other a bit in that discussion. I'm aware that this article is being proposed for use in two places, and I agree with you that using it for old names would be a BLP violation. However, the RSN discussion is about Brustopher's edit to the Gamergate article which didn't include names, and was about using the source for content on the court case. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a couple things going on, just to be clear I don't see a problem with the source as RS, just that if we really need it at this time, and if we do use it just to watch for our own gotchas in the BLPPRIVACY area. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Integrity
In recognition of your contributions to civility, neutrality and encyclopedic excellence =) 172.98.67.97 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting veiled threats[edit]

I just want to say this now that I do not appreciate receiving threats here. The fact that I got one while stating what's on my mind does not give me hope for the GGC article. I've mentioned this before but I admire your endurance on that page. GamerPro64 23:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Cathy Young[edit]

This interview may have some bits to cite as well as far as quotable statements go, both for and against GamerGate from Cathy Young and Jesse Singal. Namely some of the counterpoints Ms. Young raises to Ms. Signal's points may have some merit. What do you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet watched it though was aware it was coming. HuffPost is considered reliable by most and there should be almost no question to it being allowed as a source on that facet; the issue will be likely on weight and undue of material. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's troubling me somewhat too, though I think with this particular article it seems strange for some to argue WP:UNDUE when there are sources saying similar but consistently forced out. I've certainly not encountered an article handled like this prior that's for sure.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Hello, Masem. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

Minecraft: Story Mode[edit]

Which source says "the first time Telltale has developed for a Nintendo platform"? --The1337gamer (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn that it was stated like that in the Verge article yesterday, but it clearly doesn't now - either I misread or they corrected. The fact that is emphasized is this is the first MC game on Nintendo systems which I've changed, sorry. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider III[edit]

Hi Masem,

It's been a while since I've been actively editing, but I'm kind of back I guess. Anyway, I stumbled upon Tomb Raider III. Apparently, the full title is Tomb Raider III: Adventures of Lara Croft. Per WP:NCVG, shouldn't the article title be that too, as it is the preferred title? I tried to move it myself, but I couldn't do it. --Soetermans. T / C 10:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, I could move Eternal Darkness to Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. --Soetermans. T / C 10:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely the reason you can't move it is that Tomb Raider III: Adventures of Lara Croft exists as a redirect and requires admin priveldges to complete. The only thing I would check is that a discuss on the talk page from 2008 or so says that they are using the short title as the more common abbreviated name instead of the full name, so while I could move it, I think a need for consensus should be checked first. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) If the title is most often written in RS without its subtitle than that's its common name. Also it's best to leave off the subtitle wherever possible per the subtitle naming convention. Last time I checked, WP lets editors overwrite a redirect if there have been no other edits besides the redirect itself on the redirect page. Tomb Raider III should stay as is and Eternal Darkness should return to its shorter title. – czar 14:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the TR3 long name redirect did have a second edit so that's probably why it still couldn't be moved easily. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. Okay, this is another part where Wikipedia (or maybe just WP:VG) needs to be more clear. If we should try not to use subtitles, what about Halo: Combat Evolved -> Halo, Dragon Age: Origins -> Dragon Age, Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch -> Ni No Kuni or Enemy Territory: Quake Wars -> Enemy Territory? I'm just going to assume most reliable sources write names like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim -> Skyrim, Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker -> Peace Walker or The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker -> Wind Waker. But at the same time, we wouldn't do that either, even if that would be its most "common" name, right? --Soetermans. T / C 09:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it is a matter of consensus for some of these, and why before I engage in moving it, there should be consensus for the move. Common Name practice is not a precise thing. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its generally something that changes over time. When a game is new and relatively shiny, the subtitle gets used a lot more both by the public and the press. As it ages, no one cares enough to type the full/long title and just refers to it by number. Especially with some of the sillier subtitles out there. I *own* Eternal Darkness and I couldnt have named the subtitle when it was out, let alone now. Personally I have always thought this was a misapplication of commonname. Just because people call something something, that doesnt invalidate its actual name. In the case of media (films, games mostly) there really is no need to apply it as almost always the series name is in the title. No one is going to be confused at ending up at 'Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn' when typing in baldurs gate II. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFSOURCE re Gamergate wiki page[edit]

Hello Masem. Since the GG page is completely locked down (the measure only increases the incredible bias on the page btw - for example, not fucking mention of SPJAirplay at all. Where, you know, one of the prime writers of the SPJ Code of Conducts said the narrative spun around GG at least has the seem of bias, and the whole tent full of journalists burst out in laughter when asked whether the journalists would use a Gawker source as a primary source (you know, which almost all the articles which aren't Gawker dependent on from the RSes, and a lot of Gawker-owned 'RSes' who aren't credible at all if the reaction from journalists from the SPJ are an example)) I wish to point out that it is totally hypocrite to allow Wu, Sarkeesian etc to use as selfsource, yet GamerGate isn't allowed to speak for itself, and anything which might cast doubt onto the narrative spun by Gawker etc is immidiately dismissed as 'not RS'. I notice the same with e.g. Sommers page where feminist trolls are subtly vandalizing the page (including Strongjam). If Wikipedia wants to be taken serious and neutral, a lot of stuff has to be redone and a shitload of editors need to be blocked to ANYTHING feminist related. MicBenSte (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @MicBenSte:Take a closer look. SPJ Airplay is mentioned at the bottom of this section, with two sources. —Torchiest talkedits 22:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'There's a throw away nod, so its fine!' , The entire page is a clusterfuck of opinion columns presented the pretense of reliable. You aren't fooling anyone. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLPTALK and you[edit]

To an extent you're right: we're allowed to discuss accusations mentioned in sources. However, you're doing it in an inappropriate and pointless way. Take this diff for instance. You trudge up all these allegations by GGers that everyones faking their harassment, but then you (rightly) note per BLP we really cannot even consider this stance in putting in doubts about the harassment as Mark outlined. But if you acknowledge that we can't mention it in the article, what was the point of bringing it up on the talk page in the first place? It's just pointless spreading of negative accusations about people. This seems equivalent to saying: "Here are some accusations of bad things people are doing, not that we can mention this in the article of course." I can think of no good and productive reason to write stuff like this, it's just spreading negative accusations for no good reason. Please explain if I am mistaken. Brustopher (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off a point that Kung Fu Man had made previously in regards to how the press may take the assumption of the claim of one individual as fact [5], which Mark followed up on [6] regarding the claims of the individuals: using the example in the context that even though we had RSes sources that argue the harassment claims were false, that per BLP we have to assume them to be true. It was meant as an example in the context of the discussion of how WP should handle sources and claims, and in no way meant to make that as an accusation about the possibility of them lying. I fully believe that Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu have all received harassment without question. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. For some reason I never noticed Kung Fu Man's comment. In that case your comment makes a lot more sense and I feel a lot less confused. Striking my comment. Brustopher (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fair question, no worries. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Brustopher (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An update. Brustopher (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

Thank you[edit]

You didn't state a preference, so you get both!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MalnadachBot has given you a tall pint! Pints promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tall pint, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Merry drinking!†

Ponyo has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

GG voluntary break per AE[edit]

@Bishonen: since had said you'd like to set up details of a voluntary break for me from the GG pages, I just want to at least formalize it as you offered to help with.

I would basically make it easy, and make the period through the end of 2015. I would also rather have the approach that Brustopher offered which is, reiterating "Masem may only edit Talk:Gamergate controversy to, 1. propose a specific change to the article, 2. oppose/support a change proposed by another editor 3. remove obvious vandalism or BLP violations." I would make this cover the entire talk-page space of GG-related pages (though I don't really touch the other pages). I would also assume that this means no editing of the main page (or other GG-related pages) beyond for the obvious vandalism and BLP violations.

However, if you think it better I just leave the pages alone, I can accept that too. I would still want to make sure that the last point on vandalism/BLP violation fixes be outside that.

And as I offered, I will stay out of any new interactions with MarkBernstein that I'm not already involved with (which primarily limits it to the GG topic space) for at least the same period, if not purposely longer.

All I want to make sure this is just something I can document here, and bound myself to it. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, I think you ought to take a complete three-month break from the article and talk page. Then we can see what happens. Lots of other people are keeping an eye on it to revert vandalism and BLP violations. Sarah (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Then that's what I'll do; is it reasonable safe to assume that if I do see obvious vandalism/BLP that is not fixed in a reasonable fast period (like, more than 30 minutes) to at ping somebody directly and/or at ANI about it, that's not "violating" this voluntary break? (As you say, in the past this rarely is the case, problems are fixed in minutes, I'm just considering the outside chance). --MASEM (t) 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend staying away from it completely for three months, and preferably taking it off your watchlist so that whatever happens there doesn't bother you. Sarah (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off my watchlist then. As I noted above, I'll stay off at least through 2015. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that, Masem. Sarah (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for accepting Wikipedia's apparent policy that aggression and trolling from anti-GG editors must be answered by banning people for beign attacked and harassed by anti-GG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.72.191 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lunatics are now running the assylum. You were one of the only editors that did not believe that Gamergate=ISIS/Trolls that could have their voices left that were not barred from editing because they were not SPAs created last year(and therefore edit warred enough to get 500 edits). Hopefully you can get somebody to help hold that thing together, or come back. Any mention of third parties being responsible for any of the harassement and abuse on both sides of the aisle have been removed from the GGC article. What happened to you was not fair, and unwarranted. You were bullied out of the conversation, like the usual people tend to do. Please, get at least somebody to be the new voice of sanity in that talk page. Almost nobody can do it now that PTF and MB can go on unimpeded.Granarkadis (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babby's first redirect[edit]

Hi Masem, would you mind taking a look at what I've done at blue film? I've never done a redirect before and I want to make sure I'm going about it the right way. Thanks. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did it right. The only thing that is optional but helps is to assign the type of redirect it via templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages (which I did for that). --MASEM (t) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it out. Am I right in thinking the next step would be to take it to AfD if the redirect is reverted? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it is challenged, AFD is not the right venue since we're not looking to delete the page (the term is very valid). It effective is a merge discussion if that's challenged then. (See WP:MERGE for how that's done). --MASEM (t) 18:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice with this. In patrolling recent changes I came across another article I think is probably eligible for deletion as not notable, Homer G. Lindsay, Jr.. I just don't really understand how to start the process. Would you be willing to advise me with it, or is there somewhere else I should ask? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's basically four steps you need to do, if you want to get concensus before merging/redirecting:
  1. Identify the target article for the redirect
  2. On the target article's page, add a "merge-from" message box (the templates are described at WP:MERGE)
  3. On the original article's page, add a "merge-to" message box
  4. On the talk page of the target article, add a new section for discussion of the merge.
I believe that you should also include the merg discussion at WP:PM.
Now, the other option, if you believe that merging would not be controversial, is simply to do the redirect (you aren't erasing any established contributions), and bring over any information. If you do merge information, please note that you should also tag your contribution with a diff of the original article with your redirect, or on the existing article talk page use {{copied}} to do a similar step, so that attribution can be found for the material you bring into the article. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for all your efforts in the GG article, and we hope you have good break from it. Most of us in GG appreciate your work you put into it and all the discussion you brought forth in the talk pages.

Sincerely Thank you.

One of many GGs. TheRealVordox (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

Thank you from GamerGater[edit]

I think you must have felt sometimes you're fighting ingsoc when editing the GG article. So a sincere thank you for your efforts. The pro-MSM editors of GG should read 1984 by Orwell, this feminist fringe that smeared the hashtag GamerGate want's to get into control to have power and you really should be aware because they don't like facts, only political correctness that even Obama said is not the way to go.

-GamerGater 85.23.40.80 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More ignorant questions[edit]

Hi, Masem, thanks again for your advice about merging articles. I hope I'm not wearing out your patience with more questions. Two days ago I nominated two pages for deletion: Homer G. Lindsay, Jr. and Shielding lotion, and since then precisely no one has commented on either nomination. Is this normal? Is there anything else I ought to be doing? I was pretty apprehensive about bringing these nominations because I don't feel I have a great understanding of the AfD process, so any advice you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Starke Hathaway: Fairly normal for pages that aren't widely watched. Just scanning through the list for deletion on the 14th and theres lots that don't have comments. You did everything right by the looks of it. Traffic will pick up once someone from the WP:DELSORT project sorts and it gets closer to the end of the discussion period. — Strongjam (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Strongjam said about timing on AFDs. Also another option if you feel that the nature of an article is clearly in question you can use WP:PROD (proposed deletion) to tag the article; it works in that if the tag is left on the article for 7 days, it will be deleted, so anyone objecting to the deletion can just remove the tag (at which point if you still feel deletion is in order, you can then AFD the article). That is a easier/less complicated process to do when a page doesn't appear to have many active editors (no edits for over a year, etc.) --MASEM (t) 14:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you, for the input & advice. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Braid (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MCV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I saw this come up on my watchlist so I went ahead and fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

Reference errors on 25 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial failures in video gaming[edit]

When it comes to the list of commercial failures in video gaming, I believe the Dreamcast is worthy of inclusion. Also, I don't think the way I added should be considered unsourced since there are a lot sources in the Dreamcast's article. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BioShock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro (newspaper). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AE[edit]

You are still not getting it. The offsite co-ordinated stuff is a small part of the whole, a small part of the problem. Umpteen people have said as much but, no, you persist in trying to align the proposal with the rationale used for GG. Not everything revolves around GG, although I know much of your recent work on Wikipedia did so.

That said, I'd welcome more admins in the caste-related sphere. There are very few of them. Perhaps if you actually dip a toe in those waters then you'll at last understand what is obvious to practically everyone else. There is a massive tide of incoming newbies from the subcontinent, in part because of the misguided efforts of Sue Gardner, and there are extremely few experienced people willing to put the effort into even a very small subset of the many thousands of affected articles. Not all of those articles need 500/30 but there are some "regulars" that most certainly would benefit, examples of which were given in the proposal. The few spend almost all their time reverting the same unacceptable material and re-arguing policy, which is time that could be better spent improving the content. Semi, GS/Caste etc are helpful but not remotely capable of addressing the issues: they are reactive rather than proactive, so someone has to deal with the crap (usually at great length) before an admin steps up to the mark. We can't go calling on the same few admins every time this goes on, which is usually a daily occurrence, because that gives the appearance of canvassing and the Old Boy Network.

I'm saying no more at AE and no more here: if you can't work it out from what I and others have said then, frankly, you probably shouldn't be an admin. It is blindingly obvious. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

Reference errors on 6 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humble Bundle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book club. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

UK cover of Easy Lover[edit]

Is the front cover of the UK release copyrightable in the UK? --George Ho (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be - it does look like those are glyphs from the same font as opposed to individually "painted" letters. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded it in Commons; added to Easy Lover. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2015[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 3 — 3nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2015, the project has:

Content

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About "Human Nature (Doctor Who episode)"[edit]

Hey Masem,
I have an unfortunate history of totally borking up page-moves.
If you think it turned out OK, then I trust your judgement. And far better than I trust my own judgement about this sort of thing.
Pete "the Admin that apparently sometimes fuddles up page moves" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for October 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Video game clone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Please Myself pink cover.jpg[edit]

Is this copyrightable in Hong Kong, before and after Chinese handover? --George Ho (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese characters appear to be copyrightable per the Threshold of Originality page on Commons; I would think the US would consider it PD-text. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the murdered victim[edit]

I want to add a photo in murder of Kriss Donald, a teenage boy. Is using either images okay: this or that? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely - as this is not a bio article, the non-free image of the victim is not necessary to understand the topic. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you nominate one image used in suicide of Tyler Clementi and another in death of Freddie Grey for deletion? George Ho (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue both should be deleted, yes, for the same reasons, as well as the photos of those police in the Grey article too. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do central discussion instead at WP:VPP? This is very huge, not a mere simple follow-the-rules procedure. This would apply to all "Murder/death of..." articles, including Death of Alan Kurdi. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about RfC? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taas harkonen.jpg[edit]

Is this image eligible for copyright protection? --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a US album cover, so not copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

Toni Braxton singles images[edit]

File:A Better Man.jpg File:Toni-i-heart-you.jpg File:Let Me Show You.jpeg

Is any of above images free to use? --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember non-free cannot be used on talk pages. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I See they're all labeled as free. I Heart You is definitely below TOO, and Let Me Show You probably is (the 3 point logo nto sufficient) but A better Man, the effects in the BG push it past TOO, it should not be free, but that has to be dealt with at commons. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in Italian Wikipedia[edit]

To use a non-free cover of a single or an album, I must ask record company a permission to use it with an OTRS ticket. That's according to it:Wikipedia:Copyright immagini. I was gonna add a cover of Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song), but I couldn't without OTRS ticket. --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using at en.wiki, US fair use laws would override any copyright requirements even in foreign countries; also I'm only reading through the IT version via Google Translate and the language there is similar to our OTRS requirements, meaning it is only for the case where the image to be used needs to be marked with a free license; fair use does not at all require us to gain permission to use an image . --MASEM (t) 04:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it:Wikipedia:Copyright immagini#Fair use and it:Template:Copertina album will help you more. Even with OTRS, you can still tag it as non-free but fair use. --George Ho says "Happy Halloween" (BOO!) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But again, it comes back to that en.wiki works on US law which means fair use should apply, there is no requirement to get permission under our copyright laws. That's how I'd treat it, but you may want to ask at WP:MCQ. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish image of Italian song[edit]

What about the Finnish image? Is it free to use in Finland and then the US? Elsewhere? George Ho says "Happy Halloween" (BOO!) 05:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely PD everywhere. Finland has civil law Threshold of Originality (like the US) so just being two text strings is not sufficient for copyright. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formosa Fun Coast explosion[edit]

I uploaded a non-free image depicting the event. I have captured another screenshot that consists of just fire; I got it from the video. Shall I add it as 2nd image or a replacement? --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 03:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be appropriate a a second image. The one you have presently is sufficent to show the onset of the fire, to give a reader an idea how close everyone was to it. Past that point, it's very unclear what's happening. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calvin Harris and Disciples - How Deep Is Your Love.png[edit]

Is this image eligible for copyright in the UK? --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 04:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the difference on the E would make it sufficiently unique to be copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

Dutch single of the US song[edit]

What about this one from the Netherlands? I'm reading commons:COM:TOO#Netherlands. How original is one of signatory fonts? As for "personal mark of the maker", I think that Philips logo is enough, right? --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Phillips logo pushes it over the mark based on that reading, regardless if the text alone could be copyrightable or not. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future Part II[edit]

Hi,

Could you clarify what you meant by this edit and edit summary? If the quotes aren't necessary, why did you put them back in? Sorry, but I'm confused. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your expert film feedback[edit]

Masem,

Thank you for your expert film feedback.

I've cited your comment, at commons:Commons:Village_pump#Film_infobox_image_under_threshold_of_originality_.3F.

I'd like to move this particular image there.

Did you see that this particular user now wants to try to jeopardize my GA nomination of this article I've worked quite hard on, over this single issue diff diff ?

Can you help out with that at all, so my Quality improvement efforts are not for naught ?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help at Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia[edit]

Please, help, at Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia.

I've worked quite hard on this article to put in a large amount of effort to improve the article's quality.

The complaints by Editør are seemingly un-ending, ceaseless, and often not backed up to any sources, the user "presumes" to know things, and revisits old issues that were since resolved amicably between both parties, only to attempt to complain about them again.

The user seems to think that a documentary is not a form of a "film".

Please, I ask of you, to help bring some semblance of logic to the discussion.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I've now demonstrated through evidence in the form of direct DIFFs how the new complaints by Editør are actually reversals of their word from prior outreach compromise and good-faith agreements on my part. Your help is needed at article talk page. I do not know what to do with a user where in the past we come to compromise and agreements on resolved issues, only for them to suddenly go back on their own word, reverse themselves, and in that process they are the cause of the problem by not agreeing to any way forward. Please help? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orange Is the New Black Title Card.jpg[edit]

There is a free logo, File:Orange is the new Black.png. Is this non-free image replaceable? --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is, yes. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flint MTA logo.png[edit]

Free or non-free? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears free and can go to commons. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_16&oldid=1143157120"