User talk:Masem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Two questions[edit]

Given that the GamerGate article is extremely hard to digest when read as a whole, and deferring to your experience at WP:VG, I am hoping to hear from you on two issues... 1) which parts or sections of the article do you feel are the least impartial? and 2) is it really that there are no RS within Talk:Gamergate controversy#List of relevant sources concerning the ethics in gaming journalism perspective? Thanks for your time. starship.paint ~ regal 14:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

On #2, there's only one site that is really good as an RS, that's the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), then a weaker source is CinemaBlend. The rest are not really reliable, particularly for a controversy article. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll look into CJR. starship.paint ~ regal 05:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Masem, I saw that you generally agreed with Totlmstr's trimmed version of GamerGate. Since then, NorthBySouth has created his own Talk:Gamergate controversy#Working draft and is actively pushing for it. If you think Totlmstr's version has its merits, I was thinking that we should actively push for it ... as the main draft? Or combined with NorthBySouth's draft? I thought this should better be settled before NorthBySouth's draft gets too advanced. starship.paint ~ regal 12:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is completely acceptable process to create a draft like this; you're free to do your own, and I know of at least one doing another. It's when they come to say "Okay, now can we make this one the main article", that's where consensus should start. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I acknowledge that there's no wrongdoing in creating your own draft. I was just thinking, that the more delayed the decision on which will be the main article, the more conflict there will be. starship.paint ~ regal 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko photo[edit]

Hi Masem,

I see you uploaded the image of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet used in the article on the Philae lander. I was really curious how big of an area the image represented and looked it up and found it is 857x857 meters [1]. Do you think we could add a scale line, such as commonly seen on maps, to the image (presumably along the top of the image which shows space rather than the comet)? I'm not sure if editing the image like that would be appropriate, nor whether to upload it over the existing image or as a separate image.

Some guy (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Some guy: It is a CC-BY license so it is available to be built on. So you can freely add a scale measurement and then (recommended) upload as a new image to Commons, making sure to note it is a derivative of the one I uploaded, and definitely to make sure to site the original statement where they mention the size to explain how you got to that (to avoid OR). The resulting upload would still need to be CC-BY, but that's it. I would not replace the image on Commons (but you can on the Philae page with the new one), as both versions are useful downstream to our end readers. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, been a long time[edit]

I saw Jimbo Wales' post on Twitter in response to GamerGate, and a suggestion for a neutral article...giving it a shot, though to be honest the lead is turning into the hardest part. I haven't done this in a long time. Anyway I'm letting you know because I'd like you to proofread, because you're one of the cooler heads in all this. Would you be up for a copyedit once I get it pulled together?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to. I have a good idea where our article ought to sit. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: You may want to check here [2] for possible sources (the link was noted earlier on the GG talk page). --MASEM (t) 16:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah not going to lie while there's a lot useful in there I wish it'd focused on some core things better. That said it's very hard not to show Quinn as an aggregator here when she is pretty deeply tied to a lot of the actions. I need to add more references to a few of the statements and fix a thing here and there, but got the origin pretty much down. I'll be at my place of work the next few hours so if you can give what I have up currently a onceover it'd help. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I am fully aware Quinn's role is questionable when you look at what evidence from the GG side presents - but there's still ways to handle the situation in a neutral, clinical manner instead of assuming guilty parties out the door. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh no I agree actually, even noted that much of this is allegation some of which having been debunked. The fact both sides let it escalate to this point is what I was trying to capture here, and as a whole what led up to the GamerGate outcry as a whole. If I went too far one side or the other with some points though gimme a shout, would love to fix them now before building on them further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

67P/C-G picture[edit]

Hi Masem, regarding the filename of File:Philae approach to comet 67p prior to landing.jpg, you seem to be suggesting that Philae took this image rather than Rosetta. It was definitely Rosetta and I'll be fixing the filename, but I'm curious what led you to think otherwise. Cheers! Huntster (t @ c) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Huntster: My bad, I think I misread the ESA description in uploading. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. No problem, I'll rename it after it finishes its main page tour. Huntster (t @ c) 06:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

New TAR Clue Format and Summaries[edit]

Hey, I'd like to see your opinion about this subject here. Thanks! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on RfC wording about non-free SVGs[edit]

Greetings, I am leaving you this notice because you participated in the discussion about non-free SVGs at WT:NFC. I have received a response from WMF on the matter, and they told me that this is a decision that has historically been left to the community. In order to get some clarification, I would like to run a widely-advertised RfC, but since I obviously have an opinion on the matter, I would prefer it if other editors could give me some feedback on the neutrality of my wording before I actually make the RfC. You can comment on the proposed statement here. Thanks! 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Arbcom[edit]

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 794 words, so is over the limit. I see that you already trimmed, but note that the limit applies to your responses as well. I see several statements are over, and I am contacting anyone who is over 500. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

The Amazing Race 25[edit]

People won't drop the Sweden thing because they think I'm the only one opposing it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I feel, that to create a better article on such a controversial topic, GamerGate, it is essential for deep analysis of all involved parties. Since all the facts are still shrouded, and WP:OR is somewhat preventing research of this, "unique" controversy/movement/???, we as Wikipedia's should work together to determine facts from opinion, as well as get a better understanding of GamerGate. However, WP:FORUM has stopped quite a few discussions on the talkpage, so I'm unsure of what to do to get quality discussion going. I also propose this to ease tensions; a moderated forum of discussion would allow people to make cases for both sides. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Shirtstorm"[edit]

If you're up for it, the newly created Shirtstorm and Matt Taylor (scientist) articles could likely benefit from your attention. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Masem. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 19:48, 21 November 2014 (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.

Avono (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That 4chan image[edit]

(can't remember my old login so i can't post this on that one talk page which should not be named, so sorry if it is out of place)
Regarding the whole "rape" semantics maybe it would be worth to note somewhere that, as far as online gaming communities go, the definition of it is more akin to what urban dictionary uses for it, or to the oxford's dictionary second verb meaning. As such, there is usually no sexual connotation when using this word gaming wise (wether as a threat, joke, or just as a term to describe events), and any attempt to do so would horribly change the context of the phrase where the word is included in. It kinda reminds me of that southpark episode and the word "fag". Language evolves after all.

As for VJ's color pattern, though, i kinda seem to remember it was more related to the intention of expressing the opposition would be "butt hurt" (hence the sodomy imagery, the "butt cancer" charity donation, etc.) than to express an intention of forcing oneself sexually on someone. I have been unable to locate a proper archive for this though... .-Fighterdoken (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart as a Reliable Source[edit]

Hi there. I missed the discussion about the use of Breitbart as a source for the GGC article. Given the quality of the other sources (tabloid journalism as a whole), is it not reasonable to broach this topic again, particularly given the latest article about this IGDA blocklist fiasco, [3]. I would think so. The reference section needs consolidation and this discussion could be an opportunity to do so. I'd suggest this on GGC Talk page but the previous discussion about BB as a RS may well be closed. In any case we both know that such a suggestion will be labelled as proGG bias and it'll get vetoed immediately. Cheers. Jgm74 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Brietbart is generally unreliable due to past demonstration of poor journalism across all topics. Not that I am saying Milo is lying here, but unfortunately, there's going to be no way to clear Brietbart's overall reputation to try to add proGG sourcing here. I have watched the IGDA blacklist issue, and if it is as big as some proGG'ers/Milo argue, we should have other sources to support it. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I can understand that. But are Gawker et al. better sources? The bar seems to be set very low for the article. Jgm74 (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

On the topics of Forum Shopping and Kangaroo Courts[edit]

Is my topic ban valid? I'd like an opinion from an admin who isn't in on the tagteaming. --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't ask another administrator to overturn your topic ban. You need to go to WP:AN. Under community sanctions, only with AN consensus can a topic ban be overturned. RGloucester 00:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Is opinion=unban me pl0x, the same way green+purple=rape now? --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't really answer as involved (in addition to what RG said), and I do have to agree that the evidence supporting the ban is rather hard to ignore, in light of what the GG general sanctions demand. If it was an article clearly not under sanctions it might TROUT behavior, but not on the GG page. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions[edit]

In a few minutes, I expect tp create a section on your recent GamerGate edits at [[4]]. I'm afraid I don't understand the template system for this and hope either this notification will suffice or that you (or some passing traveller) will replace this with the proper template if that is needed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

GS/GG/E[edit]

Statements must be limited to 500 words. Please ensure that you comply with this rule. I've been making people aware of it. RGloucester 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC) @RGloucester: Done, and thank you. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. GS/GG/E is not supposed to be a place for endless walls of text, as one of the administrators noted. If this was AE, the clerk would've been more strict about it, which is one of the limits of our ad-hoc general sanctions enforcement system. I've been trying to make sure people understand that. RGloucester 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester Just as a note, there might be a need to ask editors to limit case statements to the specific elements that the case was opened if you are trying to keep all statements, including those accused, to under 500 words. This one against me is diverting into other complaint areas that Mark did not originally identify (though related), and thus for me, to defend against different positions, can make it difficult within the word limit. Not that I can't handle the additional complaints otherwise, just that it might not be possible to address all the side complaints as they build up from separate editors within a fixed word space. Unless something changes drastically in this case, I'm not asking for any special measures at the moment for myself, but something to consider in future cases and/or handling other general sanctions. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
What's supposed to happen is that the uninvolved administrators are supposed to assess the evidence for themselves. You're not supposed to need to refute everything everyone else says, and an administrator has already made note of the walls of text. Let your actions stand, and make sure comments are about providing evidence, not about rebuttal. I fear that most people are doing nothing more than digging their own graves by bringing battleground behaviour into the sanctions enforcement page. RGloucester 00:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


What started Gamergate[edit]

I noticed on the Gamergate Controversy Talk page that you said you didn't know how Gamergate started. Fortunately, this question can be answered because we have the IRC chat logs that were helpfully provided by the folks who started it, <redated to avoid any issues>

The problem of course is that if there's a way to make an anonymous chat log into a WP citation, I don't know what it is. But unless you think those IRC chat logs (over 3700 pages of them!) were fakes, you can quite clearly see the harassment campaign later christened "Gamergate" being organized and set into motion. I hope this will help clarify for you what Gamergate is all about as you seem not to have grasped some basic things about it. ReynTime (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the chat logs (Which I have only redacated as potentially BLP violating, I've read through them myself long ago), but as you say, how reliable these are, we don't know, and no other RSes (which have had access to those) have used them to make the claims they make. (If there were sources that had reviewed them and come to said conclusion, then we'd be right there for that, they're not "secret" so they've been there for any RS to make the claim to that point, but none have) As such, we cannot say what started GG. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We can't say anything at WP because there's no good way to source IRC chat logs, but given that the only way for these to not be an accurate reflection of what started GG would be for someone to create over 3000 fake pages of IRC babble, I think you can probably see why reliable sources are reporting this as definitely being all about misogyny and harassment. No reporter worth his or her salt is going to look at those IRC logs and go "Oh, maybe these are faked...." They're going to go, "Yep, this is what started it, right here," and then report accordingly. Basically, everyone who's paying attention to GG and casting a critical eye on it is quite clear on what it's all "really" about, so if you're trying to argue that GG is something other than this -- a glorified 4Chan troll attempt that found a small amount of footing after the failures of "EndFather'sDay" and "Freebleeding" and similar ginned-up "controversies" -- you aren't going to make any headway. Just because the IRC chats aren't sourceable in WP doesn't mean that any individual has to disregard them. We can all read them and draw our own conclusions as to what GG is about, and you can do the same, if you are willing. I'm curious as to what your stance is on what GG is "all about" -- do you personally think those IRC chat logs were fakes? ReynTime (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have read the logs, I agree they are unlikely to have been faked to that degree, and that it does raise many suspicions of what really started this; what's happened has taken a life of its own, with some semblence of a valid effort to talk about ethics + journalism, but still tainted by the initial events, and what those logs imply. Even with the logs, the timeline is very muddy, nor one I really want to investigate for accuracy, given the lack of any in the RSes (my research would not be appropriate for WP); the best we can go with it the call to ethics and the harassment aspects started near enough to be simultaneous. --MASEM (t) 07:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not correct, though. This same group had been harassing Zoe Quinn for months before the "ethics" cover story was devised. This is why her ex knew to post his diatribe where these folks would see it -- he was hoping they would do exactly as they did and attack her, because they had already been doing so and just needed another excuse, which he provided. The "ethics" thing is not, and has never been, anything more than a transparent cover for the actual purpose of GG. What activities have they pursued that, in your opinion, show evidence that the folks who started this have any genuine interest in ethics? Also, what reason is there to credit the notion that "ethics in game journalism" is even a real issue, given that games journalism is an enthusiast press about a commercial product? Would it make any sense to talk about ethics in Shoe Fanciers Monthly or Cigar Aficionados Quarterly or Hello Kitty Adventures? The "ethical" issues in the games industry are topics that would be covered by the general press, such as the terrible labor practices that are endemic, or the use of video games by the military to promote themselves to potential recruits. The only purpose of "games journalism" is to sell, and celebrate, video games. The notion that a game reviewer might be influenced to give a positive review of a game, thus causing someone to spend money on a product he or she then doesn't like, is hardly an issue that calls for harassing anyone in any way, let alone via the issuance of death threats via Twitter and reveals of private information. It sounds like you think GG has some kind of legitimacy and I'm really wondering what you are basing that on, because there has not been a single indication that the group has any real interesting in ethics whatsoever. What exactly have they done or said that you find so convincing? ReynTime (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is no so much any specific argument, but the response by games journalists that agree they are far too close with publishers at the AAA level to be impartial. But as pointed out GG has no been targeting the AAA relationships when to me suggests they might have the right message but the very wrong way of going about it. Harassment is absolutely not a way to do this, but I do keep in mind that those engaging in harassment are not necessarily the same people wanting to engage in ethics discussions, though can't dismiss that there are some working both sided there. Just that as WP editors we must bed careful in presu!ming guilt when it is no it clear by RSes. --MASEM (t) 10:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with "what started GG" is that both you can't source it due to being an unorganized headless movement heavily rooted on social media and forums (neither of which is nor probably should be a reliable source for wikipedia standards), and that it is a multi-layered movement that people started supporting for diferent reasons. Gamergate origin is not a single event, but a series of events that either happened or were made public, each of which pushed the situation futher. I think the sucession of events was something like (including both sides): "The boyfriend rant"(pro) → "Harrassment of ZQ"(anti) → "Mass censorship of CoI discussion"(pro) → "Tropes vs Women last issue"(anti) → "TFYC vs ZQ issue"(pro) → "10+ Gamers are dead articles in 24 hours"(pro) → "Harrasment of AS"(anti) → "GameJournosPro reveal"(pro). Everything else came when the GG gears were already in motion. .-201.186.177.13 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Has a Renaming or Splitting of the Gamergate Controversy Article been proposed?[edit]

Howdy. I'm really new to Wikipedia, but have been following this page a bit and I wanted to ask a question/propose an idea. I'm starting to wonder if it might not be possible to create an entirely "neutral" article under the current title of the article. Basically, when you're referring to the "controversy" of something, rather than the something itself, it has different connotations. For instance, there is a separate page for the Church of Scientology versus the Scientology_controversies. And while there is a subsection on the controversies in the original article, it is not the the focus of the article.

Basically, I'm wondering if the current title of the Gamergate article is actually a hindrance to its neutrality. If you are focusing on the controversy surrounding a thing, and not the thing itself, it will (at least, based on the evidence of the article presented) focus more on the biased reporting of the surrounding controversy and not of the movement itself.

As such, I wonder if either changing the name of the article to something more neutral or targeted at the actual thing "the movement" if you will, whether it is called "GamerGate Movement" or something else, or splitting the current article into two separate articles, one for the "GamerGate Movement" and the other for the "GamerGate Controversy" perhaps would lead to more neutral articles without as much infighting. (I don't think "GamerGate" is available, because that's an ant by that name). Ries42 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

On splitting - yes, this has been discussed and it is very strongly suggested we don't. The present article is too long (the major editors all recognize it) and there's ways to trim it down, and realistically there's no good way to split it even after that due to the fact there's little sourcable aspects of the the "movement". And there have been offers to rename it, but there are a couple issues with that; it is, for all good reasons, going to be at some "controversy" because of the harassment angle, which has overwhelmed anything from the movement/ethics side.--MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting[edit]

The template for hatting says to take the advice of WP:REFACTOR, which says additionally Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. This may be relevant to the hatting edit wars on the talk page. This is in relation to your post on the enforcement for GamerGate page. Tutelary (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting into edit wars on hatting convos, particularly under light of sanctions; as such I'm just asking for how the uninvolved admins how they would handle this. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh I know, and I commend you for that. The template also says: This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. So your concerns of it being used by involved editors would be correct. Tutelary (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GG evidence statement[edit]

I know you say you're adding diffs later, but there's only one right now in a statement that's almost at the 1000 word limit. Just a friendly pointer that you may need to refactor away some of your supporting argument in order to make more claims as you get evidence ready. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the lenght - the diffs will add no new text beyond links. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like everyone's going way beyond length anyway. Poor arbs. Incidentally, don't know how this happened, but your signature appears to have gotten corrupted when you made this Workshop edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.35.209 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably I added or forgot a tilde in the signature. Thanks. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

Your post at WP:GGE[edit]

Is there anything more to do at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement#In regards to involved editors closing/hatting discussions? If so can you say what action you are requesting? Do you want the thread unhatted? It's unlikely that there will be any agreement that only admins should hat threads. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston I don't want the thread unhatted, I just want commentary from the uninvolved admins participating if hatting threads by any involved (read: those already notified of the sanctions) editor is really appropriate given the nature of the page. If you don't think editors hatting threads is a problem, then a statement to this effect would help to be clear, as well as the recognition that unhatting by other editors is generally acceptable practice as long as it doesn't turn into a edit war over hatting (eg no re-hatting, that's where if the thread should be closed editors can ask admin help). --MASEM (t) 20:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be more practical if you could ask for something specific. The question of who can hat threads is murky and I can't make a great pronouncement on it. You may be asking for a policy change; no request to change policy goes unpunished. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@EdJohnston As someone noted above to me, WP:REFACTOR under normal conditions describes that anyone can hat a discussion, and a user can fairly unhat that discussion if they feel the conversion needs to continue. At that point, where we might vere into new area, is that in light of GG/GS any further hatting attempts of the same discussion should be something brought to the GG/GSE page to prevent talk page edit wars. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
These things are arguable though I'm not persuaded. Unless you want to add something more to the thread I'll probably close it as inactive. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits[edit]

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

  • Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
  • The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
  • Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you thanks[edit]

Hey Masem. It's LoioshDwaggie. I just wanted to compliment your excellent work over on these contested pages, and with you posts to the ArbCom. It's unfortunate how strongly people are fighting on both sides, but you've been doing a masterful job trying to help. LoioshDwaggie (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here and say thanks for your persistence and level-headedness on ArbCom. Your work is inspirational, a model for other Wikipedians to follow. DPRoberts534 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Day of the Tentacle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , [[PlayStation Vita]], Windows, [[OS X]] and [[Linux]] systems with an expected 2015 release.<Ref>[{cite web | url = http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/06/day-of-the-tentacle-special-edition-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

Ralph H. Baer[edit]

Yeah I saw talk about Ralph Baer earlier. Not exactly sure if its true or not. Saw a source from Examiner.com for example. Was gonna show it just it seemed to be blacklisted. But still, the source mentioned that Wikipedia mentioned him dying. GamerPro64 20:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

All I'm going to do now is bolster the sourcing of the rest of the article, as this is a clear ITN recent death nomination. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess if it turns out he hasn't died yet, at least the article will look a little more presentable. GamerPro64 20:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Source on Target GTA ban & GamerGate link[edit]

Hi Masem, I follow the GG page but I'm not able to post to it as I'm a new user, thought I'd leave this source on your page (This is the first time I've ever edited wikipedia so apologies if I'm doing it wrong!

This article from news.com.au gives pretty neutral coverage to the Target GTA5 banning, and the response by GamerGate. http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/grand-theft-auto-fans-call-for-ban-on-sickening-bible-in-fightback-after-attack-on-the-game/story-e6frfrt9-1227145911622 - Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.6.98 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop[edit]

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

DYK for Mandatory Fun[edit]

Mike VTalk 19:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

Gamergate and Newsweek's published data analysis[edit]

I like your work on the GG piece so far, fighting hard to maintain Wikipedia's NPOV.

I added a piece to the GG talk page about a little-noticed aspect of the body of gamergate tweets. According to Brandwatch, the analysts hired by Newsweek, they were only able to detect negativity in a small fraction of GG tweets. The vast majority were labelled neutral. I'd like to know if, as an experienced editor, you think this might merit inclusion. I'm new to this game, and advice from established experts like yourself would be most appreciated. Bramble window (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scribblenauts[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scribblenauts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Laurent Lamothe[edit]

Can you help me update this article? Some hostage situation in Sydney has become part of the ITN. --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
You've been an astounding administrator and editor in more topics than I've ever seen. I always see you around; helping, aiding, caring. You're doing great work. Tutelary (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

hacking altblurb[edit]

If you'll support it, I have added this: which is short and sweet, as an altblurb II: The FBI blames hacking by North Korea for bringing Sony Pictures to cancel release of The Interview and production on current projects.

Template:Did you know nominations/Sony Pictures Entertainment hack[edit]

No need to nominate it for ITN yet. I've created the DYK nomination for you before I closed the ITN discussion as withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Masem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Your GA nomination of Scribblenauts[edit]

The article Scribblenauts you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Scribblenauts for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times article on Sony Pictures Entertainment hack[edit]

I found this article rebutting claims against NK. Should it be included? --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If there was additional commentary from others doubting the NK claims, that would be worthwhile to include alongside. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you read the article yet? --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait... here's another: CBS News. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I read the article, it's just one voice, which is why if more voices said a similar thing, it would be worth including. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
AP on security guards, The Guardian, one local station. Shall I search for more? --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
PC Mag too. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't think North Korea is that capable of doing a sophisticated hack. What prevents an inclusion of these analyses and opinions? --George Ho (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All I was saying that if it was just one paper with that opinion, it would be FRINGE to include. But with those other sources now, it's a significant viewpoint (that NK likely couldn't be behind the hack) to include. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, can you or I include these opinions? --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they can be added now. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Now help me improve info more. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for I Won't Let You Down (OK Go song)[edit]

Harrias talk 12:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Awesomenauts article issues[edit]

Sorry to disturb, but from the edit history for Awesomenauts it looks like you're something like a main contributor. I'm currently trying to improve the article in question and I obviously noticed the multiple issue template. It was added in March 2013 (almost 2 years ago!) and since I am kinda new, I was wondering if you could help me out and answer a couple of questions. What does "incomplete" mean? Should it include more sections or the current sections simply needs expanding? I have no idea what else could be included in the page, any ideas? What's the present content discouraged by the guidelines? Thank you very much! Heinerj (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We really would need more development information (what was the idea/inspiration, etc.), and clearly a reception section. I'm not sure what content is being considered 'excessive' in the current article, but we do need to avoid things like listing all Awesomeanuts, etc. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question[edit]

For images from the mid 1800s to 1923 that have not been previously published until the 1990's, are we clear of any copyright issues for upload? We have a number of photos from the Hawaiian digital archives that have no publication history until the archives published the photos in the mid to late 1990s. Since many of these images have no photo attribution and the copyright holder of the image at that time would be unclear what issues should I look for (if any) to be sure the images are in the public domain? Any assistance is much appreciated.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Per [5] if we have no sure prior publication (as defined by the copyright office), then the first publication in the 1990s means that these are copyrighted through 2047 (yes, welcome to the insanity of copyright law). --MASEM (t) 02:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

Sony Pictures Entertainment hack[edit]

There are too many opinions on the cancellation of wide release, which are to me worthless and valueless and no longer encyclopedic. Perhaps the "Reaction" section should be trimmed down. --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)