User talk:Masem/Archive 21

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

12 years of editing[edit]

Hey, Masem. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 90th Academy Awards[edit]

On 5 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 90th Academy Awards, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Oskar Gröning[edit]

On 13 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Oskar Gröning, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dead or Alive Or, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bear trap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN spammer[edit]

Given that you already gave him a warning, I just thought I'd let you know that he struck again. Lepricavark (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast sections[edit]

I'm not saying we should do most things in IMDb, but we should only compromise some of the rules of Wikipedia of cast section like I said in WP:FILM and TheOldJacboite is becoming disruptive about it. I just thought I should tell you that.

One more thing, do not mention about the disagreement about the thing in Die Hard, since it is irrelevant to that discussion right now. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

impasse[edit]

Hello Masem I hope you don't mind me contacting you on your talk page. It seems like conversations on RS/N are going in circles with Objective3000. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? I was thinking to begin a new discussion on the appropriate talk pages, copy the proposed new language, and invite previously interested/involved editors to comment. I am concerned based on previous discussion that as these aren't very active articles, so single editors derail consensus building.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Dbsseven (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is going in circles because you keep insisting that I am proposing text that I am not proposing. And please stop claiming that I am trying to derail consensus building. That is WP:casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see you felt I was casting aspersions Objective3000. However, I was very careful not to say any particular editor would derail the conversation. I do not want the consensus to be dominated by any single editor, to be clear. Dbsseven (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the discussion at RS/N, where you weren't so "careful". O3000 (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000 I believe I have been very careful in my statements on RS/N and the Specter talk pages (and across WP in general). If your feelings were hurt, I apologize. However, if you have specific complaints (and diffs), I am comfortable discussing my statements on ANI. Dbsseven (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. It has been years since I have had so much difficulty communicating with someone. I said nothing about hurt feelings. Please, please concentrate on what I actually post instead of what you think I mean and these discussions will go far more smoothly. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been dragged here, I believe that @Dbsseven: has a bias problem that is causing disruption. This editor has created a half dozen new, positive articles about AMD. And, this editor, appears to be fighting tooth and nail to remove any negative connotation about AMD, no matter how well documented by RS. I am not the type to take things to AN/I or COI. But, I’m running out of patience at steadfast refusal to include even the slightest negative comments reported by RS. Every article must include such major events. I prefer gentle nudges over the drama boards. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O3000 please stick to facts and do not attack other users just because their views/reviews of the action do not fit in your view. You alledged AMD to be lying about the vulnerabilities and this has proven to be wrong. It was proposed to show both views in the article (some sites indicated a change in AMDs position which AMD denied) but you don't seem to want even this but stick to your view of "AMD lied". --Denniss (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you make utterly false claims about what I want in the article -- the restoration of NPOV text improperly removed via edit-warring. Time and again you have misconstrued my position. I fail to see how you can imagine that this is a productive manner of discussion. AMD stumbled. They reversed/backtracked/changed their position depending on which of the many RS you read on the event. Your claim that this did not occur is the opposite of what the reliable sources report. Your insistence that the article be washed of this widely covered change in position is contrary to WP policies/guidelines. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be honest: when I've read the 8-9 articles you've provided on the matter, the tone does not reflect a hostility towards AMD, outside of one or two, and those are the ones that reported before AMD made their statement. There is not a strong motivation to try to paint AMD as being in the wrong here. Mind you, the same articles don't give us a means to excuse AMD either. I've said that a statement that is along the lines "While some took AMD's news of the vulnerability to S2 as a change from AMD's prior claim, AMD maintained that their position had not changed." is a neutrally-worded statement that captures the sentiments of the day accurately without bias. --Masem (t) 17:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Masem. Back to my original question: What is the best way to then take this proposed language back to the AMD and Spectre articles? There seems to be some support for this language, clearly with objection, but it spread across here and the RS/N. Should the consensus be evaluated on the appropriate talk pages? (I am hesitant to unilaterally add the prose myself as I recognize I am not an uninvolved editor in this discussion.) Dbsseven (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t want any hostility to be expressed towards AMD. The original text did not show any hostility toward AMD. It simply reported what the preponderance of RS said. AMD changed their position. Their original statement strongly suggested that this was an Intel problem, and AMD customers need not worry. The update made an admission that they were vulnerable. But, I am not asking for charged words like “admitted”, even though it was used in RS. I am not asking that $20 billion drop in Intel market cap and increase in AMD stock occurring after the original, incorrect, statement be mentioned. I am certainly not asking that the word “lie” be added as Dennis suggested. The original text used no charged language and was in no way biased. It followed RS, leaving out any judgmental terminology. That’s the least we can do for our readers. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking this text, outside of the word "However" everything is fine. But I think after all the reading I've done for this, I feel it is probably important to quote AMD's statements to be very clear how things went down, but staying neutral. We'd be giving those that claims AMD misled the benefit of the doubt, and AMD the same benefit of the doubt that they didn't change their position. But that's presuming I have the right diff. --Masem (t) 19:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using differing words, RS say that AMD DID admit/change/reverse/backtrack. RS also used words like however/but. The original text reflects RS. It does NOT suggest that AMD purposely mislead. We don’t know if it was apurpose, a mistaken understanding, horribly worded, or pixies. We just know, from RS, that it was a change and that AMD processors are vulnerable. If this isn’t known by the reader, they may still believe that AMD processors have a near-zero risk and not bother with updates. That would be a disservice to our readers, in addition to not following the preponderance of RS. As for including thtat AMD denies this was a change in position, I have repeatedly said that I am OK with that. We include denials all the time, even when disingenuous. As for providing AMD's statements, they have removed their original statement from the web (except for the web archive), which seems unusual. O3000 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with your stance is that "AMD DID admit/change/reverse/backtrack", which is just not true. Sources claimed AMD's announcement that S2 affected them was a backtrack, but that's not an opinion held by a majority of sources, but AMD clearly had to clear that up with their later Jan 11 statement. There is no factual basis to state "AMD changed their previous statement". We can attribute this claim and should, and be clear that AMD maintained they didn't but were working on patches to help everyone protect themselves. We do have what AMD had said in Jan 3 and Jan 11 in RS articles, there's no need to go to AMD themselves, and if they actually did change or delete their statements on their website, we'd need an RS to point out that change. --Masem (t) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this has been stated by the preponderance of sources that reported on the second statement. O3000 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And in its statement later that day, AMD clarified they had not changed. That makes it a disputed fact, which per NPOV we should present the stances with attribution, and not judge either side right or wrong. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I am understanding it, this incorporates the old language with the new, giving POV attribution "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. While some took AMD's news of the vulnerability to Spectre variant 2 as a change from AMD's prior claim, AMD maintained that their position had not changed." Dbsseven (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems perfectly fair and more detail for someone researching the situation using WP to help highlight key points. --Masem (t) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We must take care to not mislead the readers using AMD chips into believing that they are at a near-zero risk, as incorrectly stated in the original statement. Over a billion chips are affected. Obviously, now that these vulnerabilities are known, they will be hacked. I would rather have absolutely no mention of Spectre than to mislead AMD users. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A fair concern, which I believe this is clearly addressed in the sentence: "AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre." Dbsseven (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind our general disclaimers. We're not offering advice nor actions. People who misread "near-zero risk" as "no risk at all" unfortunately will have the potential to be affected, but it is not our fault or duty to make sure they recognize that "near-zero risk" means there's still a potential for risk. --Masem (t) 20:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may not "legally" be our fault. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question of what degree of responsibility we should have, which again, that's why we have disclaimers so we dont have to worry about any responsibility. A fraction of readers will recognize "near-zero risk" in tech and legal speak as "having some risk", while others will read it as marketing speak to be "risk free". Is it our responsibility to serve those reading it as marketing speak? Not really, and if we start to go there, that's a slippery slope elsewhere. --Masem (t) 20:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimers are generally useless if it can be demonstrated that a risk was known. That aside, AMD shouldn’t be using marketing speech about such a vulnerability. The original statement said that vulnerability to Spectre 2 hadn’t been demonstrated. Lo and behold, nine days later they had demonstrated it. That’s not near-zero risk. That’s high risk. If they could implement a hack based on the info in a public paper so quickly, others can. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As of today AMD still stands to the "near Zero risk" with Spectre 2 and a successful attack has also not been demonstrated to or by AMD. The attack risk is purely theoretical but will be reduced to zero with microcode updates. --Denniss (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can they possibly say they are creating fixes for something they can’t demonstrate? How can they possibly say that the risk will be reduced to zero if they haven’t demonstrated it? This is absurd on its face. You can believe what you wish. But, this is an encyclopedia. We have some responsibility. We do not help companies promulgate absurd claims. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a rough shot at providing an NPOV compromise. We reverse how this is stated:

AMD originally acknowledged vulnerability to one of the Spectre variants (GPZ variant 1), but stated that vulnerability to another (GPZ variant 2) had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed a "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. In an update, nine days later, AMD said that "GPZ Variant 2…is applicable to AMD processors" and they defined upcoming steps to mitigate the threat. Several technology and financial sources considered this a change in position, which AMD has denied. (Cites to be added.)

O3000 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you can't say "deny". Outside of a couple sources, none of the material seems to take an accusational tone towards AMD. Also keep in mind, you can never prove a negative (that is, "AMD is not susceptible to S2"), they have simply stated they have yet to be able to demonstrate S2 happening on AMD chips.

One issue that might be at play here is how much each of us is coming at this from a technical side or a different approach. I'm seeing all this from a technical lens, and nothing AMD has said or done is contrary to what a person in tech would reasonably interpret given standard language in the industry, so I might be slightly favoring their side, but I've tried to put that aside in evaluating this. I can see the approach that one reading it from a marketing perspective could be upset that AMD lied to them, and I understand why one would want to take that tone, but even putting myself in that frame of mind, the sources don't seem to be taking that strong a stance here. I don't have any idea which way you're coming at this from, but I would ask if you can try to see if from other perspectives to understand why I'm concerned about language like "denied". --Masem (t) 00:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I’m using the word deny is because another editor insisted that they denied that there was a change. And, AMD has admitted that they are vulnerable to S2. I don't have a side. I am using RS. O3000 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where "denied" is coming from but that's an overly aggressive word for us to use when I do not get any strong impression from the whole of the sources that they were accusing AMD of going back. I'm framing that the issue of the S2 vulnerability report and AMD's two statements (that they were vulnerable, and that they had not changed their position) was a controversial, "he-said, she-said" situation that never got resolved to which side was correct, so we just use less accusation wording and statements of attribution. I know from the sources you've list you can pick and choose a couple that are much more accusational, but again, I'm considering the whole of what sources said and have said since, and there are very few fingers trying to blame AMD for anything. Hence the need to use more neutral language than "denied". --Masem (t) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it was another editor that insisted on denied. Source after source described this as a change in position. But, editors here appear to want to rely on a primary source, AMD, instead of the several secondary sources to suggest that AMD is less vulnerable than other manufacturers. There is zero evidence that AMD is less vulnerable. The suggestion was a primary, self-serving statement that has been removed from AMD's website with no evidence and now not even an existing claim. O3000 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading the sources Objective3000 has provided, none say AMD's risk is the same as other manufacturers. In fact two state after AMD's Jan 11th announcement that "AMD’s share value dropped immediately following its announcement today, but it has since recovered, possibly because the company’s chips appear to be less susceptible to Spectre and Meltdown than Intel’s processors" [1] and "...AMD chips may be safer, but they're not invulnerable." [2] Dbsseven (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "may be" is based on AMD's self-serving statement which suggests, but doesn't state outright, that they are somehow safer. The fact is that all chips with speculative execution (over a billion chips) are at risk. We cannot tell our readers that AMD chips have a "near-zero risk" which would indicate there is no reason to apply updates. This is simply irresponsible. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to right great wrongs. It is not our responsibility if people misread "near-zero risk" as "zero risk". --Masem (t) 17:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was already raised [3], and addressed [4][5].Dbsseven (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said NOTHING about righting great wrongs. For the nth time, I am saying that we should not promulgate a misleading, primary, self-serving claim. And, they aren't "misreading" it. That's what it strongly suggests, most likely because that was what it was designed to suggest. We are also not here to carry AMD's water. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're qualify AMD's statement as a self-serving claim (it very well might be, that doesn't matter) and then insist that we should warn users otherwise. We are not in that position to make that judgement; that's the problem here. --Masem (t) 17:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say we should "warn" readers. We should use secondary sources in an NPOV manner. If you look at my proposed text, there is no "warning". Simply what RS have reported. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Objective3000 this is not first time you have suggested for "denial" to describe AMD's actions [6][7][8], then claimed you are not the advocate for this language [9]. This is counter-productive and has us revisiting old arguments. (And all our edits are logged and searchable, so these claiming it's another editor is just silly.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was yet again an attempt at a compromise. Read it. I said that I was OK if that's what another editor wanted. I am really tiring of these aspersions and false claims about what I have advocated. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact others have repeatedly objected to "denial" [10][11][12][13], so continuing to advocate for it is clearly counter-productive. (And casting aspersion is without evidence. I provided evidence as diffs.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your aim is in continuing to insist that I want text added that another editor wanted. I simply agreed to include it to satisfy another editor. Please, please stop claiming that I want to add text that I don't care about. Since editors keep claiming that I want to add such, let me try this once again. Here is my proposal, with text that editors have complained about struck out:

AMD originally acknowledged vulnerability to one of the Spectre variants (GPZ variant 1), but stated that vulnerability to another (GPZ variant 2) had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed a "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. In an update, nine days later, AMD said that "GPZ Variant 2…is applicable to AMD processors" and they defined upcoming steps to mitigate the threat. Several technology and financial sources considered this a change in position, which AMD has denied. (Cites to be added.)

O3000 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slight change, adding AMD's statement as discussed: "AMD originally acknowledged vulnerability to one of the Spectre variants (GPZ variant 1), but stated that vulnerability to another (GPZ variant 2) had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed a "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. In an update nine days later, AMD said that "GPZ Variant 2…is applicable to AMD processors" and defined upcoming steps to mitigate the threat. Several sources took AMD's news of the vulnerability to GPZ variant 2 as a change from AMD's prior claim, though AMD maintained that their position had not changed." Dbsseven (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. That's all I've asked for. Can we get this in before it is challenged again? O3000 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 Monkeys-related RfC[edit]

In regard to your comment on the 12 Monkeys talk page, I put in a request that the RfC be closed. The conversation has ended and I see no consensus. Strangely, I was informed yesterday that someone had rewritten my request for closure to make it more "neutral". Is this standard practice? I didn't feel there was anything non-neutral about my request. As I know you are involved, you are not going to close the discussion, but would you mind taking a look at my request and tell me if you thought anything was wrong with my choice of words? Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting how it should be closed ("no consensus") is "tainting" the close reason. You probably could have left it as being stagnant and not drawing new responses, that would have been fine. --Masem (t) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really suggesting how it should be closed, simply observing that I didn't think a consensus would be reached. I still believe that. Which, returning to the subject of the film, leaves us in the same place we were more than a month ago. I see no way out of this impasse as long as one editor seeks to impede any progress. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you're saying, but even the hint that a consensus can't be reached in the closure request is just a bit of tipping the scales. It's not a major problem, just would say in the future the less you say why you need the close, and stick to just asking for a close would avoid any type of concern like this. --Masem (t) 18:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you, as promised[edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Barnstar for humor, as promised. I'm not sure whether you actually want this, since your disclaimer of any credit for your Post-Posing entry may well not be solely motivated by a desire to avoid being hauled before the Supreme Cabal on charges of violations of AGF and/or NPA against assorted wicked virtue-signallers such as me. And vaguely similar remarks may also apply to your amusing defence of Gamaliel's canoe race's place in ITNR. But, if so, you can perhaps keep it warm until Lady Luck and/or The Great Joker In The Sky work out how to get themselves a Wikipedia User Account . Anyway, thanks again for making me laugh, whether intentionally or not, and regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MH list[edit]

would you like to assist me with the Monster Hunter video game list? I wont fight for keeping Generations in main list unless more evidence is provided, but I just thought I could get some extra pair of hands for this one. I also think its important because there are MMO's and portable/Freedom versions that are barely mentioned. it could make the main page better.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) As I said at WT:VG, Monster Hunter is not a large enough article to warrant a size split to a list. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about this a couple weeks ago and a couple of other people told me that it was worthy of a separate list.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating redirects for page size consistency on List of Nintendo 3DS games[edit]

I see that you have created a redirect to Lumines Remastered. Might I suggest in doing this with Harvest Moon 3D: The Lost Valley and Harvest Moon 3D: The Tale of Two Towns and +? And others which there are a bunch more in the 3DS Games article? Thank you very much! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnite Battle Royale[edit]

Wouldn’t that also mean that PlayerUnknowns Battlegrounds isn’t an open world game either?Dohvahkiin (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for FA mentorship - Hellraiser: Judgment[edit]

Greetings, Masem. I am Darkknight2149. As the primary editor of Hellraiser: Judgment, I believe it stands a chance of meeting FA standards based on the criteria laid out at WP:FA and I was wondering if you could take a look at it and tell me if you agree. If it does, or if it comes close, I would much appreciate it if would serve as my mentor as I try to get it to FA quality and status. It is already completed, and I believe it is well cited, neutral, well written, and covers the topic in full. Cheers, DarkKnight2149 01:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(No Pressure) If you are uninterested, feel free to remove this message so that I'll know. I can understand if you are busy, as I myself have been late to responding to messages on my own Talk Page at times. DarkKnight2149 21:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply - I've looked through the article and don't see anything that stands out amiss for an FA. I would recommend possibly requestion a copyedit via WP:LOCE I doubt it needs much here but it helps to grease the FAC wheels. And I can help if after nomination if there are any issues that you can't resolve. --Masem (t) 21:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, your advice and critique is very much appreciated! I will file the request before nominating it, per your recommendation. DarkKnight2149 22:50, 4 April 2018 (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.

One passer by (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template: wikia on main page[edit]

See: [14] I ask you a question.

Thank you Flylikeaseagull (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 Monkeys[edit]

Do you feel a visit to ANI is warranted at this time, or should we continue to give them WP:ROPE? DonIago (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very uncomfortable with an ANI for what little disruption there is beyond TE on the talk page. If edit warring starts, though... --Masem (t) 15:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If edit-warring starts they'll likely be blocked in any case, given they were brought to WP:3RN previously and warned as a consequence. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago: [15] this is a foot on the line. --Masem (t) 13:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning to respond given that a) I don't trust myself to be civil (the urge to snark is high), b) I'd likely just end up reiterating myself, c) despite my best efforts, I'm pretty much done AGF in this situation, and d) at this point I doubt anything I could say would make a difference in any case. If you feel it would be helpful for me to say something despite those concerns, please let me know. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came here for an unrelated reason, but ... wow, small world. FWIW, User:Doniago and Masem, the 12 Monkeys affair (or rather the behaviour of a certain editor on that page and apparently a bunch of other pages) is presently at ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm well-aware, though thanks for mentioning it regardless. I was discussing this with the filer as well prior to things getting to the point where the case was opened. The situation seems to be well in hand at this point, and I'd feel obligated to identify myself as a biased party if I was to say anything there...but mostly I feel like my first comment here was rather tragically borne out. I really hoped the case being opened at ANI would serve as a wake-up call to them, but they appear to be blinded by their own light, as it were. Nevertheless, if you feel that my saying something at ANI would be meaningful, please do let me know. DonIago (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Kennedy[edit]

The article Judy Kennedy certainly is notable per meet criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN as a “major local political figure who has received significant press coverage". The article well sourced and the sources used are reliable for a RD Nom to pass. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote for that criteria suggests that there needs to be a lot more than just local coverage. Every politician is going to recent press coverage from local sources, that's why we look for a higher bar. --Masem (t) 02:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Harry Anderson[edit]

On 17 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harry Anderson, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vgrelease (Labo article)[edit]

At the Nintendo Labo article, is there a reason why we do not simply use WW and EU since only Europe has a different release date? (In Australia, Labo releases on the April 20 as well but currently it is not in the template.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAnonymousNerd (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox Live Arcade games listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Xbox Live Arcade games. Since you had some involvement with the List of Xbox Live Arcade games redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Abote2 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atari Adventure question[edit]

I see you've recently added to the Atari Adventure entry, so wanted your opinion. I've recently launched a reboot of Atari Adventure as an internet, multiplayer game (h2hadventure.com) and was considering putting it in Wikipedia. Not sure if this is valuable information or shameless promotion. Was thinking about mentioning other notable mods like Indenture by Craig Pell (a DOS reboot of the original game with 300 new rooms) or Adventure Plus by Steve Engelhardt (a 2600 hack). What do you think? Ro-anders (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to have these mentioned in independent, reliable sources to include. We can't include any random mod or remake based only on the fact we know it exists, but that it has been of notice. --Masem (t) 03:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Upload for Room Three[edit]

You had uploaded the logo of The Room Two by releasing rights correctly. Can you please upload the images of logos of The Room Three and The Room: Old Sins? Shogun2001 (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Portals[edit]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Sessions v. Dimaya[edit]

Just an fyi that I nominated Sessions v. Dimaya for DYK. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 4 [edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 4 . I can see you have been vocal on SVGs in the past Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Toronto attack[edit]

I renamed 2018 Toronto attack. Looking through what links to it, I noticed it's on the front page (omg, I don't think we realize the import of this locally) - but I can't edit the link there. So I'll leave to someone like you. Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone's renamed it to Toronto attack, which might be a bit too tight - sounds like a rugby team. But I'll leave that to others ... edit ... oh no Toronto Attack maybe I won't! Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC). 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.

Thanks TheSandDoctor Talk 17:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
For creating Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC‎ - you should nominate it for GA, it was a pleasure to read SeraphWiki (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a bit away from GA, at least in terms of content and referencing. I know there's material near the time the Court granted cert about the impact of rulings (eg if the Court found it unconstitutional, all 1000+ inter partes cases would have to be re-evaluated.) Plus I want some impact statement -I'm seeing some language that suggests this might be a landmark case but that will take a few days to come out :) --Masem (t) 00:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Player One inline cites.[edit]

Hello there. You asked me how this inline cites are wrong. But i don't know, means its not my mistake. In one of my previous edits when i gave the same source in every line of a long article, one user deleted the cites and said that removing excessive links. He is also a experienced user but not a administrator like you. So i done the same thing here in one of my own edits. Hope i answered you respectfully. Thank you DCEU (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC) DCEU (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DCEU: I see what happened. Each of those cites are exactly the same thing, so that's right not to include it anew each time. But we do have named cites which the same cite can be applied multiple times. I've replaced all but one of those cites with just named cites to the same deadline.com article. --Masem (t) 00:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir for your nice answers. But i checked ready player one page and you said that you have replaced all cites but leave only one at the end but that's not the case. In each line there is the same cite '"'Avengers: Infinity War's $630M Global Bow Sets All-Time Record – International Box Office". Deadline. Retrieved 2018-04-29.' So what do you mean i don't understand. And at the end which thing is right same source in each line or single source at the end. Thank youDCEU (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Named references allow you to use the same citation without have it appear more than once in the reference list. So I only have defined the deadline.com reference once, but its used four times. Now yes, it is presently the same cite after each of four sentences that are all together; this may or may not be necessary (one cite at the end of a block of text can be sufficient for all text prior to that reference), but in this case, as the four sentences were talking about different box office performances in different regions, it made sense to reuse the cite for each one. I would check WP:CITE for more details. --Masem (t) 14:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Named references allow you to use the same citation without have it appear more than once in the reference list.' what does that means. Can you please elaborate it properly. It will be very nice of you. Thank youDCEU (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a citation once like <ref name="citename">{{cite web ... }}</ref> (where "citename" is any name you want, then whenever you want to use the same citation elsewhere in the article, you can just use <ref name="citename"/>. That allows reference reuse throughout an article. --Masem (t) 21:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Journey into Night[edit]

Can you help me main space this? Valoem talk contrib 22:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prey 2006[edit]

In Prey, the death of the character does not correspond to a definitive death: thanks to Indian powers, it's possible to operate in the spirit world and come back to life a virtually infinite number of times, exactly where you died. For this particular representation of death (so different from videogames of its period) I thought of inserting the Wikiproject Death. Just saying to make clear that my thought was not build on nothing. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Dead Redemption 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


New discussion-[edit]

Hi, I was thinking that you, Masem and I , have been going around in circles for a couple weeks now about our own interpretations of the Film MOS, this wasn't my intentions when I started the discussion thread, I wanted to see if there was any consensus among other users for either of our interpretations. With both your and Masem's consent I'd like to start a new thread about it, where all three of us would limit our input to seee if we get a consensus going. --Deathawk (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another RfC on Net Neutrality[edit]

A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free former logo question[edit]

Hi Masem. Since you’ve got lots of experience dealing with non-free content use and also (if I remember correctly) are familiar with how it can be used in articles about video games, I’m wondering if you’d mind taking a look at Talk:Story of Seasons#Harvest Moon image issues. I don’t feel confident that a valid FUR can be written for such a use, but I could be missing some important aspect that someone more familiar with these types of articles might see is as sufficient justification for non-free use. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sessions v. Dimaya[edit]

On 8 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sessions v. Dimaya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Sessions v. Dimaya, Trump-appointed US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined a 5–4 vote against the Trump administration? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sessions v. Dimaya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sessions v. Dimaya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam Greenlight games[edit]

You created this category (Category:Steam Greenlight games) in 2012, but I think it is inappropriate. I don't know exactly why, but I have a feeling this category is very wrong. Steam Greenlight is not especially notable; it basically only means that the game is available on Steam (among hundreds of thousands of others) and we don't have a "Steam games" category. Finally, it looks like 100% original research: I dare you to find one reliable source which supports that a game in that category was greenlit on Steam. wumbolo ^^^ 12:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Florida v. Georgia (2018), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flint River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 11#File:IndyCar Series logo.svg[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 11#File:IndyCar Series logo.svg. Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy notification since I mentioned you by name and also referenced something you posted about non-free content use in an old NFCR discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of Rain talk page on genre, your undoing of my good faith edits[edit]

Masem, you reversed by edit without assuming good faith on my part, claiming a good faith effort on the person who originally added the "metroidvania" claim. I assume they acted in good faith too, but they didn't see the disconnect between the article author's claim and what Wikipedia's own page on metroidvania says. Please look at my argument on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Risk_of_Rain The article needs a better genre for the description box, too, where it also lists "metroidvania." Cheers. (guy putting off programming briefly) 2601:680:8002:56F1:4490:6939:E4DD:2156 (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why did u do this to my edits[edit]

    Hi I would like to ask why you undid my edits to the Overwatch League page. I do not believe i broke any rules and I was aware of the section below but I just wanted to go over player behavior in more detail in the intro paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyE Gaming (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That the league has come down on player behavior is something discussed in the article, but its not a significant factor to be put into the article lede. --Masem (t) 22:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

I really appreciate the work you've been doing at ITN/C all these years-your judgment seems to be remarkably accurate.

Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Battlefield V) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Battlefield V, Masem!

Wikipedia editor Willsome429 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating the page. Coincidentally, a group chat I'm in had a long discussion on its merits last night. Funny how those things work.

To reply, leave a comment on Willsome429's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much[edit]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

ITN recognition for General Data Protection Regulation[edit]

On 26 May 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article General Data Protection Regulation, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 07:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for TotalBiscuit[edit]

On 26 May 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article TotalBiscuit, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 07:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam Greenlight games has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Steam Greenlight games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 08:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Ted Dabney[edit]

On 28 May 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ted Dabney, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 76[edit]

Heya, just curious what would qualify the Fallout 76 page as a full article, not just a redirect. Right now all we know about it is info from the teaser trailer, which admittedly isn't that much (so I guess it makes sense that it's a redirect right now). Would it need to be released fully to have an article? Or would the info in a regular trailer be enough? Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wannacry attack[edit]

Hi you recently reverted an edit i made on the Wannacry cybera attack affecting DLA Piper saying it was a Ukraine attack. Could you please elaborate on this? Thanks Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were two close cyberattacks that year, so you need to make sure which attack it was. The Wannacry was in May, the 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine were in June. DLA Piper was known to be hit by the second one from other RSes (note your source also mentioned shipping co. Maersk, which is a known victim of the June attack). --Masem (t) 14:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atari VCS[edit]

When looking at images of the Atari VCS, the console does not look like it uses physical media. I believe that is worth stating, considering all previous Atari consoles use physical media. What do you mean when you reverted and said "Not necessary in the lede."? 2605:E000:2E54:8F0:6976:D86F:3301:5E97 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the language in the lede already implies games are stored on the console, rather than played off cartridges. We generally don't call out when something doesn't do a certain feature in lede paragraphs. --Masem (t) 15:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lumines collab?[edit]

I think I got the hang of editing articles. I just made improvements on Edge (video game) and Every Extend Extra. Would you like to collab for Lumines? I managed to get Lumines II at start, and i'll be moving to Lumines: Electronic Symphony soon, but as for the first game I think we could get it to GA status. IMHO, the best course of action is try to create a series article. That will help get rid of the fat of the Sequels and follow up section. What are your thoughts?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS - UNDUE conundrum[edit]

Another example of how the never-ending NOTNEWS click-bait issues continue to plague our encyclopedia. The most recent example is evidenced at Liberty University#Donald Trump, and in the somewhat passionate discussions taking place at the TP. A small group of students and alumni attracted a bit of media attention - the group of protestors was small vs wide spread, but it was news for the clickbait online publications nonetheless; therefore, some editors believe that alone justifies inclusion. If anything, I'm of the mind that the approach should be to present the position of the university in a few sentences and be done with it, but biased media tends to focus on passing the blame to Trump - why not? The result was flash-in-the-pan reporting over an inconsequential event during the 2016 campaign, and then in 2017, a film incited the rejection of Trump yet again in more of the same flash-in-the-pan reporting. The media sensationalized everything, mentioned the group had started a page on Facebook for their protest, which no longer exists, and neither should the material in the article except for what I mentioned regarding the position of the university - after all, the article is about the university. The political nature of the material coupled with media's biased reporting/sensationalism of the protest raises my concern that we are neglecting our 3 core content policies, and therein lies the root of the problem that inevitably leads to behavioral issues. Worse yet is when those of us who are trying to adhere to policy and attempt to explain why it's UNDUE and NOTNEWS in a civil manner are the ones who end-up as by-catch. The suggestions I've seen in a few AE cases (one of which I was named) has been to TB every editor, a suggestion I have tried my best to understand, but it still boils down to it being what I consider "the easy way out". I realize AN, ANI and AE are for the purpose of managing disruption to the project resulting from behavioral issues, but I'm hoping there's another way to manage it before things rise to a level of disruption. The current remedy reminds me of what some parents do when their kids are being disruptive; i.e., all of you go to your rooms! It's typical of not having time to deal with it, or perhaps it's an out to not show favoritism, I don't know. What I do know is that it's temporary treatment of a symptom, not a cure. The virus tends to come back mutated and stronger. So, Masem, who enforces policy vios relating to content? We've already experienced the respective noticeboards which are simply an extension of the article TP. Local consensus doesn't always land in support of policy, and RfC's tend to reflect a more concentrated view but that doesn't resolve NPOV when the results of consensus are noncompliant, which may explain why the policy itself says 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. The prevailing suggestion to editors has been to simply not get involved if you don't want to be TB, which begs the question, how does that help preserve the neutrality of WP? Atsme📞📧 18:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely something wrong with having that section, it is disproportion in terms of the overall time that the university has been around. This should be a reasonable factor, but I don't know how best to articulate it beyond NOT#NEWS, yet. I have to give it some thought, it's not something to jump in and suggest without a strong case and language to support change , in the current environment. --Masem (t) 19:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have stated it any better than what Obama said? I think not. 😊 Atsme📞📧 21:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet[edit]

Hi Masem,

Do you might taking a look at a user named Fecotank? I suspect that he might be a sockpuppet, but I cannot prove it; I don't know who the sockmaster might be. My suspicions were aroused following a conversation at Talk:2018 Supercars Championship. He is an editor with barely a dozen edits, but has demonstrated knowledge of markup and the dispute resolution process that is unusual for a new editor (motorsport articles tend to get a lot of socks who present like this). His name also seems to be a play on "fecal tank". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit[edit]

This revision isn’t a minor edit.

Keep this up, and you might be blocked! (By yourself!) Interqwark talk contribs 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3[edit]

Hi, I promoted the hook for National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, and then realized it was over 200 characters. I piped the link. If you want to do it another way, please let me know. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: alternatively you could use "NIFLA v. Becerra" as the case name (with that abbreviation). But I'm indifferent to how it's handled there. --Masem (t) 23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think calling it a 2018 US Supreme Court case, rather than the obscure initials and case name, is more understandable. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
This is for helping out on Lumines, and Tetsuya Mizuguchi articles. :) Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Life on Mars[edit]

On 9 June 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Life on Mars, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra[edit]

On 10 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at oral argument in NIFLA v. Becerra, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether a California law was "gerrymandered" in order to discriminate against crisis pregnancy centers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Assassin's Creed Odyssey) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Masem!

Wikipedia editor Lee Vilenski just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

High quality article as always Masem, good job!

To reply, leave a comment on Lee Vilenski's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

As you agrred with me on the catrgory removal: Could you also look at the other category additions by Dimadick. You seem to have more Wikipedia expirience than I and could probaply handly it better. Also, as I have been warned for edit waring before, I have put myself under a voluntary one revert rule and therefor won't revert any more changes by him. Therfore, could ypou please look into it? Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused with tag[edit]

I've added the tag because Incredible 2 was redirected to HTC Incredible S. I've cross posted the tag on both articles because of this. Plus, on the page, it says the phone is also known as Incredible 2. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've unwatched this page. Please {{ping|tyw7}} if you've replied. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

On 21 June 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Koko (gorilla), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucia v. SEC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KPBS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free user-created collage[edit]

Hi Masem. Just wanted your opinion as to whether File:Siddiq (The Walking Dead).jpg is OK as licensed. Is a separate WP:FCT and WP:FUR needed for each file per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3a? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a separate source is needed, but the key is that if one is going to end up evaluating NFCC on that page, that is equivalent to 3 non-free images. (The user could have uploaded 3 different files to get the same thing, NFCC-weight wise). --Masem (t) 03:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAC mentoring[edit]

Hey there. I've been thinking of nominating Puella Magi Madoka Magica for featured article status for several years now, but I haven't done an FAN before (though I have experience with GANs). I'd like to nominate it for FAN, but I'm rather inexperienced with the whole process, so if it's okay, could you please mentor me through the process? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Thank you for your work on the article for Trump v. Hawaii. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry for the rollback Masem, I miss clicked. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahj2107: no worries, I misclick that all the time and revert asap :) --Masem (t) 16:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thank you for continuing to maintain articles I've created in my absence and staying with me during my brief time on this account. I am planning a clean start within the next few months, and hope that not only you continue to improve articles like Human: Fall Flat, but also that we cross paths again one day. This one's on me. :) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Better Call Saul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar point (also, "sciency" position statements versus everyone else's opinion)[edit]

If you could compress these [16][17] into a two short sentences (or one 1, or 3 really short), what would that look like? I'd like to include the gist of this in WP:FMSP, but you're probably in a better position to abstract this into a bullet point, having articulated it in longer form in the first place. It ties in closely with what Mandruss was indicating in longer form at WP:VPPOL#Not a democracy?, which inspired WP:FMSP in the first place, though I didn't manage to integrate his thesis, really, either (but would like to). I did touch on the effects and what to do about, in the bottom section of the essay, but not so much the observation/rationale, the notice of the shift in the editorship and in how people get stuff into their heads (fake news, clickbait, polarization and reality bubble/echo chamber effect of social media supplanted pro.-edited news, yadda yadda). That, too, is difficult to compress into a bullet point. (For me, anyway, since I've not been mulling it over for a last several years.)

PS: I'm aware we disagree on the nature/reliability/DUEness of the JAMA Forum piece. I take a hard-line position against citing opinion as anything but opinion, though some editorial materials (e.g. from genuinely renowned subject-matter experts, in their field of expertise) are higher-quality primary sources than random op-eds by activists or whatever. (This also relates closely to – is nearly identical to – my long-running beef with "the offending line" in WP:MEDRS.) Curious if you have any thoughts on drawing some kind of distinction and whether editors are actually drawing it and on what bases; if not why? For my part, I have yet to see a single person articulate a cogent argument in favor of the JAMA Forum piece as source we can just use with impunity; it's been nothing but a stream of "because journal" or "because JAMA" or "because scientists" or "because some other scientists looked it over before this was printed and they didn't run away screaming". It's all been without any recognition that not everything in a journal is secondary (most of it isn't!) or factual research; that the reputation of the publisher is irrelevant when the publisher disavows the content ("it's just meaningless CYA" is original research; we cannot read their minds and have to take them at their word); that scientists are opinionated, political, have blind spots, just like everyone else; and that peer review of an opinion piece is very, very different from peer review of a research paper. I think something from that piece could be included, within WP:DUE, iff its authors are eminent and we attribute it clearly and inline, then balance it with a counter-view. WP's not in a position to just present what they said as factual. I also think that some of what's happening in this particular case is knee-jerk reaction against qualms about the JAMA Forum op-ed simply because the critic was also making weird, broad, POINTy criticisms of entire classes of RS; that's guilt by association. Someone being a bonehead about one thing doesn't make every thought they have invalid, nor does their being a PoV warrior do that.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: It would be something like "When including very recent material relavant to a topic, factual, non-contestable material is reasonable free to include, but opinions, analysis, and criticisms should be judged with the test of time, particularly if the material is contentious. Editors should not try to decipher the public opinion until some time has past, or when specific opinions and analysis themselves receive significant attention." --Masem (t) 15:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this would not address the crux of the disruption at these Politics articles, where some editors routinely call facts "opinions" and call unsupported assertions (i.e., opinions) "facts". SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the issue. Some questioned that what I call for NOT#NEWS/Recentism that that means we can't cover plane crashes/etc. There's clearly a difference between an objective event that we can cover the instant it happens (of which only becomes a notability issue), and subjective commentary which needs time and careful review to judge, but the confusion there is related to the conduct issues (if some are going to fall back and assert opinions as fact, you're going to get pushback the other direction, and vice versa.) --Masem (t) 16:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pushback and stalemate. Then a less disciplined or less experienced or less well-informed editor will start chiming in with behavioral violations. My own view is that if Admins had done as I believe Arbcom intended -- actively patrolled and handed out escalating sanctions, instead of waiting for AE filings from involved editors -- there would be much less frustration on these topics. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a statement I'm debating on the wording in the talk page of AE in that thread, but it is related to what I perceive as a strong trepidation of admins taking actions against well-tenured editors who, on a first pass with regards to policy, seem right, but are a significant cause of the problems when you consider what I've tried to point out. But again, it's coupled content/conduct issue here, it is not simply resolved with just bans. --Masem (t) 17:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On that particular case the editor could have been sanctioned the first time he called mainstream sources fringe. That's not a sin but it's not consistent with editing an article under DS. He could have made many other arguments against that particular content, but denying one of WP's core policies disqualifies him. It could just have been a couple weeks time off for reflection, then we'd/he'd see how things develop. His incivility and BLP disparagement of these academic practitioners was just icing on the cake and suggest a larger problem, so I think that -- it's having gone on long enough to get as bad as it now appears -- he has earned a much more longlasting period of contemplation. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more speaking to the issues raised at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#A_broader_issue on the general problem, not the specific case. --Masem (t) 17:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Broader problem -- I think our Policies and Guidelines are very robust because they've been continuously improved by thousands of thoughtful editors who've observed how this site actually functions. But the problem in American Politics is that We have only one or two Admins following the politics articles daily, and they are also doing half a dozen other tasks, and they are not exercising the delegated authority Arbcom gave them via DS. They should be stepping in at the first sign of discussions gone bad with a warning and if it doesn't help with a short block. Taking these matters to AE is very problematic. 1. We have involved editors bringing the complaints 2. Admins are generally not evaluating these complaints in the context of heightened and tightened enforcement. Some folks are talking about AP3, but I don't think that addresses the core problem, which is lack of application by a small number of over-burdened volunteer Admins, without relying on involved editors (and their cronies) coming to AE. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree that lack of admin enforcement at AP2 is part of the issue, but there's another issue atop that I'm working to address, and that involves admins that don't want to take action against well-tenured editors for fear of "retribution" or "fallout" from that action. It's easy to point to new editors as a problem, but we've had issues in other areas in the past when it is the experienced editors that are a core part of the problem. I point to what happened when ArbCom ruled on GG and how things reacted as to why no admin wants to take steps like that. But that's part of the language I'm working on describing (and outside the question SMC was looking to get.) --Masem (t) 20:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, folks. I think this provides at least three clear bullet points to add to the essay, including the enforcement point, which was well articulated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trans woman VP question[edit]

I see you have broached this at NPOV board. I don't know if you got my ping or not but I had a go at drafting a question at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#Village_Pump_draft. I think it would be worth combining your draft and mine and cover all bases. I also think my phrasing maybe does a better job at avoiding the whole biological/ideological landmine which we invariably want to avoid stepping on, by splitting the terminology into "general readership" and "specialist". Let's get this question right and neutral! Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: yes, I think yours is better, but I do think we need to also resolve the GENDERID question at the same time. If editors clearly agree GENDERID applies to general articles, then the second question seems to become moot. --Masem (t) 15:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast not needed in plot[edit]

Masem, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Additional opinions requested I noted my intention to revise the MoS and another editor spoke in support, with no editors expressing opposition for over a week. As noted there, the subject was also raised previously at Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Cast in summary with nobody expressing opposition. I feel there've been multiple discussions about cast members in plot sections at WT:FILM over the years, all of which ended with a feeling that there was no harm in removing cast members from the plot section as long as there was a cast section. If you don't feel there's at least implied consensus at that point, then given that we're talking about an essay, could you please initiate a discussion where you feel it would be most appropriate? Thank you. DonIago (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I thought the film project was still split over that, but I see the MOS don't have the option, and while that discussion I don't think shows "wide" consensus, it is at least something, so I'll revert my reversion. --Masem (t) 03:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! DonIago (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:NFC#Duplicate non-free files[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFC#Duplicate non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at this because you have some experience in dealing with non-free svg files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Richard Swift (singer-songwriter)[edit]

On 5 July 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Richard Swift (singer-songwriter), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Zanhe (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Ready) RD: Wang Jian (businessman)[edit]

Would you be so kind as to post this? Thanks! If this was inappropriate to ask, please tell me. I am still trying to get a hang of how ITN operates.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE matters[edit]

Please see my proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on proposal to enhance design of collapsible lists templates[edit]

Hi Masem, greetings! I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to invite you to comment on this proposal I have submitted at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Request: Add_one_"show_all"_button_to expand_at_once_all_collapsible_lists_inside_a_template. Thank you, (talk) user:Al83tito 15.05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

WannaCry[edit]

Regarding this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WannaCry_ransomware_attack&diff=850943429&oldid=843643431&diffmode=source you made, you forgot to leave a citation for your edit. Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge the Bat[edit]

this article needs image of it's fictional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.248.181 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN backlog July 29th[edit]

Hi Masem,

Thanks for clearing the backlog at ITN/C today. Tour de France still has some missing refs, but I don't care that much. Either way, glad you passed by.

Cheers --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft question[edit]

Hey I am a member of the Project Video Games and the Article Rescue Squad and I see you are in both projects too. I came across a draft of KoGaMa and it was promotional and spam. I fixed the Draft up to meet Wikipedia standards as much as possible, including adding references. I want to submit the draft because I fear that ,despite warning the author ,that he/she will revert the draft back to spam and revert me. Can you take a look at the draft ,fix up any issues and possibly either submit it for review or prevent the author from reverting the potentially good changes that I made to it? Thanks JC7V-constructive zone 03:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 45#File:Canadian ePassport Cover (2013).JPG[edit]

Hi Masem. You this NFCR back in February 2014 so it's probably ot fresh in your mind, but I'm wondering whether your "Single use remaining is clearly fine" meant the use in Canadian passport#Gallery or whether the image has been moved since that NFCR? If it's the case of the latter, then maybe it should be moved back because, at least at first glance, the gallery use appears to be not OK per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall it being used in a gallery, but now, I don't think the gallery use is supported. There is effectively no difference between the various covers outside of color, font choice, and placement, and there's no discussion about the changes as we'd expect for a "logo gallery" so a gallery isn't appropriate. --Masem (t) 05:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This file is being used in the main infobox as well; I thought that was probably the "single use" you were referring to, but just wanted to make sure. Do you think being WP:BOLD and removing the non-frees from the gallery is sufficient, or should they be discussed at FFD? The gallery use of the infobox file seems an obvious NFCC fail per NFCC#3a, NFCC#10c, and NFG, but it will not end up being deleted per F5. The other two files, however, will become orphans and tagged for F5 if they're not re-added somewhere. Maybe proding them might be better than being bold? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FFD. --Masem (t) 05:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 3#Canadian passport photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Engine 3 screenshot[edit]

Hi Masem. You recently edited Unreal Engine, so I'm wondering if you would check the non-free use of File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg in that article. The rationale looks to have been a straightforward copy-and-pasted job and the editor who did so forgot to change the article parameter's name. If the non-free use is fine, then no biggy; however, it appears that Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 3 is a redirect and the screenshot might have been originally used in the "Engine 3" article. Often with redirects, people just move images as well because they assume that the non-free use is also automatically compliant per WP:JUSTONE. If the use in the "Engine 3" section is OK, then the use in first person shoter might no longer be NFCC compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine in the Unreal Engine, but shouldn't be in the first person shooter engines, its far less helpful there. --Masem (t) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. The article name in one of the rationales can just be changed. Is there anything else that is needed in the ratonale for "3 Engine"? As for the other use, video game screenshots seem have some unwritten allowances when it comes to their non-free use. Do you think a FFD is warranted or can the file just be removed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger NFCC#8 can be met for the engine. There's other shots of the various interations of the engine, to show how it has technically progressed, but that rational should be better explains both in text in the article and NFCC#8. But as for the FPS engine, that doesn't seem to be necessary, its not a screenshot is needed (and it's not even an FPS image...) You'd probably better use FFD for that removal though. --Masem (t) 13:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, file nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 14#File:Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan Demo Screenshot.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video game cover art[edit]

Hi Masem. I'm curious as to your take on the non-free use of video game cover art in Power Instinct. While it seems that the box cover art would be almost certainly OK if used in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the individual games themselves, I'm not so sure when they are used in subsections of one single article about a game series. Maybe there's a unwritten exception made for video game articles that's not being made to book or music articles, etc. Or, maybe the use of non-free album cover in articles like Music of The Lord of the Rings film series is OK? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one has a notable video game series, but the games are not independently notable, then the cover art of the individual games is normally inappropriate. If there was no logo for the series, then one representative cover art could be used too. Same is true for that music article, particularly since they are similar. --Masem (t) 01:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. The basic assumption would be then that a game/album aren't independently notable if a stand-alone article cannot be written for it, right? The question then is assessing whether one can. For example, in some cases a cover version of a song might independently notable, but all of the cover versions are included in the same article per WP:COVERSONG, but I'm not sure if something similar is done for video game series or album series. Moreover, this argument might be extended to include list articles such as 2015 in Glory where poster art for individual events in included in a year/season list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cover songs are generally unique since they rely on context of the original song, so that's why they generally end up covered like that. In video game series, each entry is considered separate, but if there's not sufficient sourcing for a full article, it should be covered in a series article (along with summarizing those games that are notable); games in a series that are notable can (and generally do) have their own article. That's why there's WP:NFLISTS - you generally cannot give a per-item cover for a series article. Note that if the artwork of the cover of an element of these elements is the subject of critical commentary, then it can be included with proper rationale. --Masem (t) 13:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nacho Varga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Barsi[edit]

Asking for a third opinion, please. @AldezD: objects to me putting a link to Hungarian Americans as a See also link in Judith's article. Can i ask your opinion on this? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, I don't see it as a problem in the lede (it's documented she was an American with a Hungarian heritage), which should thus be represented as an appropriate category. I don't think it as a See Also helps, necessarily. --Masem (t) 16:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Benjamin Austin:, you continue to add nonsense to this article. The category American people of Hungarian descent is already tagged. The article Hungarian Americans does not need to appear in a See Also section. Her ancestry does not need to be mentioned in the lead. These details are not significantly related to the article subject. Details about her appearing "waif-like" and your personal opinion of her "central European features" do not belong in the lead. Your personal comparison her to a wholly unrelated literary character is also unnecessary. AldezD (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every BIO/BLP I've seen includes the person's ancestry/nationality in the lede and infobox, unless there was severe dispute over the ancestry.That's considered a core detail about a person. I do agree that, unless these are fundamental to her acting career, the discussion of her features does not need to be in the lede. --Masem (t) 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Masem. AldezD is often abrasive and obnoxious. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick favor[edit]

Please reinstate John Shipley Rowlinson to RD. He incidentally got removed when Kofi Annan was added and then Annan was bumped to blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stranger Things (season 1)[edit]

Hey! I don't know, but for some reason season 1 of Stranger Things is still in draft status despite having a large amount of content. Is there anyway you could help/sort this problem. Thanks! The Optimistic One (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Optimistic One:(talk page stalker) I just happened to scroll up and see this. I took a look at your draft, and noted the recent history with it. My advice is to be bold and replace the redirect at Stranger Things (season 1) and add a {{main}} tag at Stranger Things#Season 1. Going through the usual channels just seems to have resulted in red tape getting in the way of improving the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: That page is protected, only admins can edit it, I can't do anything about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Optimistic One (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. I also see there was a dispute over this very thing that led to that protection. If I were you, I would try to get a conversation going with all parties who reverted you, and come to a consensus. The draft looks okay to me, so it might not be too hard to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it tomorrow. The Optimistic One (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: Go check out the talk page for ST. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of arbitration remedies at AR-15 style rifle[edit]

Masem, I'm fully cognizant that people can see the same event very differently, and I'm also still pretty inexperienced when it comes to how wikipedia is administered. With that said, I'm trying to understand how this edit is not a violation of this remedy:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

It was a very bad-quality edit for a number of reasons, and reverting it seemed like a pretty reasonable action to me (granted, the edit summary was a bit lacking). But people might disagree on that, and it's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking how reinstating the edit after it was "challenged via reversion" isn't a violation of the remedy that says you cannot reinstate an edit that's been challenged via reversion (without first achieving consensus, which obviously didn't happen here as there was no time and no discussion).

It's really an honest question for my own edification - I'm still trying to figure out how this place operates. Is it that the rules aren't meant literally as written? Or that they are, but aren't enforced? If so, why? What's the point of having them? Doesn't it encourage bad actors when you have rules that you don't actually need to follow (because well-intentioned people will follow them anyway, but those with an axe to grind will not)? Thanks for any help. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion wasn't about contentious material, but claiming it was just badly written, which is debatable. As long as the material captured the source properly, arguing over grammar would not be considered challenging the material itself. --Masem (t) 18:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the remedy says nothing about reasons. If "any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" means "any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) for reasons the person wanting to reinstate then decides are valid", what would be the point? And why can't editors take any rule on wikipedia and interpret it like that? Wouldn't that make all the rules here effectively meaningless?
If your argument was "that remedy shouldn't be there, it's not good policy" or "yes it was a violation, but minor and doesn't require action" that would be logical and I'd get it. But trying to argue this didn't violate this very plainly-written rule - that I don't understand. Anyway, thanks for the response (I understand if you don't want to discuss it further). Waleswatcher (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue[edit]

I confess I was a bit surprised when this edit was was flagged by the CopyPatrol tool. It looks like your addition to List of The Shield episodes, was copied from The_Shield, which is sort of okay but according to Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, best practices suggests that such an edit be accompanied by an edit summary stating: copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution S Philbrick(Talk) 23:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one of the copy-from templates on the talk page to satisfy that. --Masem (t) 23:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I marked the edit as acceptable, on the presumption that you would do that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you start that conversation at the appropriate venue...[edit]

Please feel free to ping me. There's far too much scandal mongering and 24 hour news cycle response on Wikipedia these days. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

our perennial discussion[edit]

Every single time it gets brought up on a noticeboard, there are more and more people agreeing with the position we've both taken, at least in principle. I think that a policy change might not be in the near future, but it is coming. That's the sort of thing that gives me hope for WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its a pendulum for certain. There is nothing wrong with having cover of very recent news stories and when they aren't controversial, they usually can be in great shape within 24 hr of an event; it's just the external factors that feed internal factors create problems as well. --Masem (t) 19:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article nomination of San Junipero[edit]

Since you're familiar with the FA process and have worked on Black Mirror articles before, I thought you might be interested in reviewing my FA nomination of "San Junipero", which can be found here. If you're not interested or don't have time, don't worry – I won't be offended if you ignore or delete this message. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the FA page tagged, and will try to review a bit but at least watch for other comments. --Masem (t) 22:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

If you have a chance, would you look at the RfD re File:Photo of Mollie Tibbetts.jpeg. Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
I've been editing Nintendo pages for a while now, and noticed that on nearly all the pages I've edited about Nintendo, you've made at least one edit. On some pages, you've even made a huge number of edits to the page, such as the List of Nintendo Switch Games Page. Thanks for all your edits on Wikipedia! Greshthegreat (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Osaka nationality/ethnicity[edit]

Hello, and thank you for contributing to the Rfc at Talk:Naomi Osaka. It may or may not interest you to know that an additional option was added (by me) after you made your contribution(s).
This is not a canvas, just an invitation to have another look at the RfC if you're interested. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Lim(Birthdate)[edit]

You changed my edit. It is found on famousbirthdays.com. Blackraven101 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Blackraven101. Based upon Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 224#Why famousbirthdays.com is a reliable source for birth dates and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#Is famousbirthdays.com a reliable source for personal information is appears that the Wikipedia community consensus is that the website is not a reliable source for such information, particularly information about living people. Those discussions, however, are a few years old and maybe the site has changed the way it operates. A Wikipedia consensus can change as well; so, you might want to ask about this a WP:RSN to see what others think about the reliablity of the site now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Half-Life (series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sandbox
Ralph Breaks the Internet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Moana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking...[edit]

...perhaps we need to change WP:EPISODE, and my reasons for it follows: whenever a redirect is reverted/removed, the article shows up in the NPP queue. Classic example - redirect removed and an article was created citing 2 questionable sources. See this discussion which resulted in this commendation. Lovely camaraderie - I have no issue with that at all - although I'm not overly excited about the two new sources that were subsequently cited, unless they represent the kind of sourcing reviewers are now supposed to accept. I simply want to know if it's time to update our PAGs to accommodate this new trend of creating articles for every episode of every popular TV series, despite WP:NOT. I don't care either way - in fact, I may even start creating stand-alone articles for every episode of Friends, Seinfeld and The Big Bang Theory if it's an acceptable practice. In the interim, AfC and NPP reviewers are dealing with backlogs, and it would be nice to know if we should be restoring redirects for rather common, poorly sourced episodes in every television series or nominating a bunch of articles for AfD. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Atsme✍🏻📧 00:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem Your thoughts?? Atsme✍🏻📧 05:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the series. I know ones I follow like Westworld, Better Call Saul, and (OG) The Walking Dead all have a parade of reviews (based on Rotten Tomatoes), plus additional material put out by the network to go into some of the behind the scenes elements. To that end, it is fair that if these have been known to exist for most episodes of the series, standalone episode articles are reasonable, with the expectation that it can be filled out in the future. Not all TV series support this, so it should not be automatically done for each show, only those that routinely show this type of coverage. --Masem (t) 18:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks[edit]

Thanks for that revert. Bluexander (talk · contribs) (who turned out to be a sock of Jack Vixion (talk · contribs)) was bouncing back and forth between the named account and various IPs messing with several articles and I missed that on the page you fixed. Have a pleasant Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 03:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on Better Call Saul[edit]

Thanks for working in tandem with me on Coushatta (Better Call Saul). Between us, I think we captured a lot of detail quickly, and then rapidly sorted through word usage, grammar and spelling edits to produce something that was accurate and complete without being overly long.

Billmckern (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Half-Life (series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandbox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch hardware refresh[edit]

From what I can tell, Nintendo Life claims that the WSJ report on the Switch refresh is just another baseless rumour that should not be included until further announcement is made from Nintendo themselves. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of reliable sourcing the WSJ has much more reputation than Nintendo Life. WSJ does assert its inside information and not necessary what will come to pass, but WSJ usually doesn't publishe random insider theories. --Masem (t) 16:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox Interactive[edit]

I've made a proposal in regards to adding a paragraph/section on Harebrained Schemes, linking to its wikipedia page, as Harebrained Schemes is now a subsidiary of Paradox Interactive. The proposal is in the talk page for Paradox Interactives wikipedia page. As such I am reaching out to significant contributors on the page to voice their support or opposition before taking any such action. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Jyggalypuff (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ubisoft Montreal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eidos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about ITN[edit]

Sorry for being such a sarcastic ass at the IPCC nom, and thanks for your well reasoned response. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Assassin's Creed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Genetic memory
Music Modernization Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Variety

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Trainspotting" essay[edit]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 13#Wikipedia:TRAINSPOTTING, the WP:TRAINSPOTTING redirect has been nominated for deletion. I have instead suggested it be retargetted to your essay with this title (User:Masem/Trainspotting), you are invited to leave any comments or objections you have in the linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman[edit]

From your additions to Ubisoft, I read that Rayman was developed by Ubi Soft Paris, but our article on the game currently says that it was Ubi Pictures (Montpellier). Do you happen to know which one is the proper developer of the game? Lordtobi (✉) 17:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casual Playing Delete[edit]

You right, I reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casual game (2nd nomination) because Someone person merged the Mystery Case Files games with the main article and for me all the series is notable even Wikipedia think all casual are not notable and « Run-of-the-Mill ». Can you close it? Frapril (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this clearly disruptive AFD and warned the user. The next effort like this will be an indef block. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've impressed me[edit]

The Socratic Barnstar
I've been impressed by some of your arguments that I have come across. They are well made and persuasive. Keep it up! -Obsidi (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_21&oldid=1045691979"