User talk:Masem

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


"List of commercial failures in video gaming"[edit]

Hey, sorry I was in the middle of reworking my edit when you did yours. I think commercial success or failure for software needs to be defined like it is at the top of hardware for this article. (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:TV interview for WP:POST[edit]

Can you comment at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews6.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thirty Flights of Loving[edit]

Hey! I am almost finished with my draft for Thirty Flights of Loving, before I take it to FA. Since you were the original writer of the article (thanks for that); I would like to share the nomination with you. After all, it was a joint effort to make the article what it is, and what it would be :) Cheers! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I'll help co-nom it, no problem, thanks for letting me know. :) --MASEM (t) 23:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thirty Flights of Loving is ready. I will wait until it's promoted to GA to take it to FAC. -Hopes it's fast- Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 14:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Loving is now at FAC :) I already added your name :) — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 16:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question about Story Arcs[edit]

I don't oppose the Doctor Who story arc page being moved to individual pages, but Doctor Who (series 5) is already GA and I was wondering if sources would need to be added to the future summary to keep that status up to date. Also, I worked on adding summaries to each episode (for most of them anyway), so is the summary section always necessary? Glimmer721 talk 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that if Story Arcs went away, then the wikilink to "crack in the universe" would find its home on Series 5 where the series summary would focus on that arching aspect. (at most, 2 paragraphs long and not touching on every episode, just the key points) As a plot summary it wouldn't need sourcing but it easily can be from non-primary sources since I know that various review/commentary sites followed the cracks theme. So it should not "break" the GA at all. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
All right no problem then. Would the individual episode summaries then become irrelevant? Glimmer721 talk 01:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No. The idea is not to touch on every episode but gloss over the larger picture. See what I did already on Doctor Who (Series 1) for how I am thinking this is going to be added. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix mugshot image[edit]

As you have shown interest in this image before, you are invited to comment on its deletion discussion. It can be found at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_8#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Quarter 4, 2013[edit]


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2013
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2013, the project has:


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

E-mailed you[edit]

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

Dogman15 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


I know you're only doing your job, and doing it for the betterment of the encyclopedia. As you've seen in the discussion, I will go to the point of researching the image beyond the established claim of fair-use to see if it is actually includable under another license. I learned hard and fast on image copyrights through experience here; and I certainly respect the difficult role of keeping copyrighted images off of WP, tremendously. But there are unusual cases that blanket interpretations of #8 & #3 don't do any justice. This is one of them. I appreciate your input there, and no hard feelings to you or any other editor. Cheers :) Doc talk 04:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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.
Doc talk 06:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

RFC: Month abbreviations[edit]

Hi Masem! Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Month abbreviations would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glossary of video game terms may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:
  • ;[[Action role-playing game|{{vanchor|Action role-playing game)}}]] (ARPG)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Ever feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

MLP Episode 78 "Simple Ways" - Possible Writer Error[edit]

I put TBA in the 'Written by' section of the MLP episode "Simple Ways" cause the "Bats!" episode had Meghan McCarthy as the writer, not Merriwether Williams. The writer for "Simple Ways" might not be Meghan McCarthy. --Asaraullo05 12:45, 17 January 2014 (PST)

The press release for Bats! correctly had Williams listed as writer; it was only the episode title card that was wrong. There's no reason to doubt the press release at this time for the Simple Ways episode. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early access, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DayZ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

Question about images[edit]

Hi Masem, I wonder if I could ask your advice about image releases. I'm looking for photographs of Plamil Foods products for the article about them. There are plenty on Flickr that I could probably get releases for. I'm thinking of images like this one. My question is whether a release from the photographer is enough for an image like that, where a company's products are displayed. Any advice would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The core issue you're pointing to is the "de minimus" aspect , if the product artwork is the center of the image that would make it a derivative work of Plamil's copyright. I would probably say that this would be considered de minimus - the focus of that photo is not so much on the packaging artwork, but on the overall display of the product, but that is a point that someone else might consider an issue in the future. But if we assume de mininus applies, then yes you only need the photographer's consent for a free image to use as a free image.
As another point, some of those packaging labels are simply text, which would fail the threshold of originality. And since you can't copyright the utility of the packaging approach (the celophane), photos of packages with those labels would definitely be clear of any copyrights save that of the photographer. This would make even more reasonable that you only need to get the photographer's consent to use as free. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's very helpful, thank you. I'll go ahead and try to get a release in that case. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Coin images[edit]

Just to let you know, I have asked for a steer on the question from Jimbo on his talkpage. I hope I've represented your position fairly. Jheald (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Abundance of press release citations in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 4)[edit]

Even though we discussed this in the article's talk page previously, I'm still conflicted as to what the purpose of citing each of The Hub's episodic press releases are. Episodes that have been made publicly available (via broadcast or otherwise) are already primary sources of themselves. Since the references are placed directly after the titles, this implies that the references are used to verify those titles. But since each episode already features the title, citing them is made redundant. WP:ABOUTSELF makes it clear not to base articles primarily on such sources. If the references for the titles that have been broadcast were taken out, I don't think doing so would harm the notability of the article at all. Instead, I think that would give more incentive to expand the article with more secondary and tertiary sources. — Whisternefet (t · c) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Using press release to cite first broadcast details of an episode is not a sourcing problem; the season already is shown notable by other sources, and using primary sources to affirm factual data is fine. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Not what I was trying to say, which is that the episodes are already primary sources. Since the references are placed after the title, their function is to serve as a reference for the titles. This would be necessary if the episodes were broadcast without titles. But since they are, citing the press releases is entirely redundant. You don't see list articles like List of Lost or Family Guy episodes provide citations of itself after every title: it's superfluous. If each episode displays a title, then why does that title require further verification using a press release about it? — Whisternefet (t · c) 01:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
True, the episodes themselves are sources for title and production credits, but airdates remain separate from that. These should be used to support the airdate and can be moved there. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The air dates are already referenced through the Zap2it ref in the "Original air date" column header. That reference applies to every air date listed in the column, excluding those not broadcast yet, for which we can reference air dates individually until it has been broadcast (since it's not as obvious for the reader). — Whisternefet (t · c) 02:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Technically, the Zap2It references are primary sources as well (they aren't analyzing or interpreting the data). The only reason the press releases are better sources is that they give all the casting and writing credits too. There is nothing wrong with number of primary sources - even if we end up with 26 different press releases; that's not the issue that when we talk about basing an article on too many primary sources. You can check with the TV wikiproject to see if they have any more advice, I just don't think there's harm here yet. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I moved the references to the air date column (for the record). — Whisternefet (t · c) 03:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Usage of Clementine image[edit]

January 20th, you restored my edition of Clementine (The Walking Dead) in good faith. I hope I didn't do anything stupid, but I would see the image (File:Clementine, from The Walking Dead, A Telltale Game Series.png) in the article) Thank you for the attention, Yoshidome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshidome (talkcontribs) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have any reason - yet - to include a separate image of Clementine from the second season. She looks the same as the first (perhaps a bit taller, but that's trivial) and our NFC requirements set a higher bar for inclusion. Also, it is a very dark image and not useful for identifying her compared to the existing image .--MASEM (t) 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC),_Channel_9_Stage.png[edit]

Can you please change the license to CC-BY-3.0 I am unable to change the license for the image. I am the original uploader/owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talkcontribs) 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg[edit]

I was going to reduce this to 300X300px, but the file page claims this is PD. What do you think? Is this really a PD image that I could add to the Hendrix bio? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Following the discussions on Commons, it is apparently PD (due to lack of Copyright notice and renewal), so yes, it can be used freely on that page. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

Telltale Games[edit]

Hi, I saw your reversion of my edits. Do you know what else I can use as a source? This is a real issue and affected every customer who bought those games from Telltale's store and feel that it's important that some mention is made. eyeball226 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately if only users on the forum are reporting it, and Telltale hasn't made its own statement towards it, there's no reliable source that can be used. We need a site like IGN or those in WP:VG/RS explain there's an issue so that we know this is not something made up by users or that it not as severe as it seems. (even if it is true, WP has higher validation standards.) So I would keep my eyes out for a statement by Telltale that addresses there's an issue and then that can be used as a source. (We have similar problems when things happen on Steam and users claim there's a major issue, we have to wait until we have third-party confirmation or first-party clarification). --MASEM (t) 00:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, that's difficult as Telltale have not commented publicly on the matter. All I have directly from them are emails from their support department and know people who have also had similar (and unfruitful) dealings with their support department. Obviously those emails wouldn't be suitable. Thank you for the advice though. eyeball226 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Input request[edit]

There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In regard to Pinkie Pride[edit]

The episode was leaked; see 21:36 for credits for the songs. Cloudchased (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I know it was leaked, I've seen it. But it has subsequently been pulled making the information unverifable. We'll wait until the episode properly airs to include that information. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimi at Monterey[edit]

I am trying to follow the logic at the Hendrix talk page, but I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the particular image here File:Jimi Hendrix burning his guitar at the Monterey Pop Festival, June 18, 1967.jpg, cannot be used because of Getty, but that almost any other shot of that moment would be fine? Please explain. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is specifically of WP:NFCC#2 for commercial opportunity. If the photo is owned by a photo agency like Getty, and the photo specifically isn't subject of discussion, we cannot use it because there are people that actually sell that photo for money. No other reason otherwise why we can't use it. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The image is the subject of critical commentary in the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This goes to the point that Doc was making. The metal image of Jimi burning the guitar is discussed in detail, but that specific photo, on the other hand, is not. And as there are other photos of Jimi burning the guitar, we have to see if any of those are not as restricted (eg do not belong to an agency like AP or Gettys). --MASEM (t) 17:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the exact image is discussed by two authors: Musicologist David Moskowitz wrote: "The image of Jimi kneeling over his burning guitar at Monterey became one of the most iconic pictures of the era."[128] and Author Michael Heatley wrote: "The iconic image by Ed Caraeff of Hendrix summoning the flames higher with his fingers will forever conjure up memories of Monterey for those who were there and the majority of us who weren't."[121] Isn't that enough in-line critical commentary? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear if that still photo is the one of discussion, since there are at least 6 to 7 others out there from a Google Image search. Any of those capture the "image" of him burning the guitar , and while they are all likely non-free, one of them that does not fail NFCC#2 would be appropriate to be the subject of discussion for the article. But with NFCC#2 now in question on that specific one, we have to look for an alternative, and if all of them are Getty's, past practice would not allow us to use any of the photos unless on their own those one of those photos was notable. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that Heatley is not talking about the image? Its the exact image we are talking about. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is there any doubt that Heatley is referring to the same image? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not likely that one sentence in one source is enough to make it "iconic" enough, especially when dealing with Getty images. It would probably have to be discussed in many sources to be iconic enough, as in something like File:Kent State massacre.jpg. Doc talk 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
How many? How about this from Rolling Stone: "When Jimi Hendrix set his guitar on fire at the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival he created one of rock's most perfect moments. Standing in the front row of that concert was a 17-year-old boy named Ed Caraeff. Caraeff had never seen Hendrix before nor heard his music, but he had a camera with him and there was one shot left in his roll of film. As Hendrix lit his guitar, Caraeff took a final photo. It would become one of the most famous images in rock & roll." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a good start, for sure. From my experience, admins who delete on the side of caution do not like letting Getty images in at all, so see what Masem says. Doc talk 18:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Now that we have a photographer's name, it's clear that specific photo is the one people considered as the iconic one. I'm seeing more sources that do talk about the photo in that context, and at this point, I would say the weight of sourced discussion overrides the NFCC# issue. A different concern becomes how to show that in the article without going too far off tract from being about Jimi. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I would think you'd also have to swap out anything in the FUR (i.e. anything after the first quote in the "Purpose of use" section) that only pertains to the "mental image" for these sources that pertain to this exact image. Doc talk 18:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
At a minimum yes that needs to be done, documenting the nature and original photographer. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that while the FUR states: "The reduced resolution is not of a high enough quality that it could compete with the copyright holder's commercial interest", it is very clear that it is of equal resolution to the original. Doc talk 17:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That makes the NFCC#2 issue even worse. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you aware of any prgrams that reduce resolution? Also, what if we invented a watermark that read: "For educational purposes only"? That would certainly take care of NFCC#2? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be completely inappropriate to add a watermark, as for one, we can't change the license on that photo. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Does the new version satisfy NFCC#2? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest asking that at WP:NFCR, or letting me ask that? We're not talking about outright deletion so FFD is not right, but it would be a good place to judge on the NFCC#2 issues. I believe I can explain how we're at this point to get the proper judgement there, but if you want to initiate it, that's fine. I personally think we're on the edge of keeping it, but I'm one voice. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Lets do that when you're confident that it will pass. Speaking of which, what do you think of this addition; are we there yet? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you've got enough there, the conundrum here is that when we allow NFCC#2, its for phots notable on their own and for a stand-alone page for them. Where the issues may come is using that image in context of Jimi's article instead of its own, but this is a case where it makes sense to have it on Jimi's article. I am 99% assured this photo can be used on WP, but some make say "you should make its own article" since you have 5 sources talking about it, and that makes it clear why we can ignore NFCC#2 for this. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As a stand-alone article it would be a stub of one small paragraph; unless we dragged in lots of detail about Hendrix that really doesn't belong. Most of the sources say the exact same thing, so its not really like five that expand on the different aspects of the point. They all agree that its iconic, and two give a little bit of background. It is one of two or three seminal moments in Hendrix's life, and it made a significant impact on his career. It makes perfect sense at the Hendrix article. The section is about Monterey and the aftermath as it pertains to Hendrix. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the significantly reduced resolution take care of any concerns with NFCC#2? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • No because these agencies want to license their photos they own at any resolution, hence simple reduction as to meet NFCC#3a doesn't fix anything in NFCC#2's issue. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • If it came down to it, couldn't we just use the one on Getty's website, with the copyright and author watermark already on there? Who could say that it violates NFCC#2 if Getty is giving it away online? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
        • No, that would be worse. It will have the same problems and be worse for the readership with the watermark. And just because it's online and freely downloadable doesn't mean it is a free or safe/fair use of the image. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Masem, I notice that GabeMc is listing NFCC#4 again as a reason to delete the mugshot at the new NFCR. Do you believe that it is more likely than not that the source (again, directly answerable to Time Warner) published the mug without even considering the permission of the copyright holder? Doc talk 01:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
            • It's been published - whether under the copyright holder's (if there is copyright) consent or not. So NFCC#4 doesn't apply save for figuring out the copyright term length. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
          • He doesn't contest that it was previously published - he's saying it was published without the "true" copyright holder's permission, thus it fails #4. But who is the true copyright holder? No one conclusive, yet. I'm tired of beating my head on the desk on just this one point, and I will make my NFCR comments brief so to avoid walls of redundant explanatory text. Cheers :) Doc talk 01:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
            • That's basically a non-argument at this point - it's been published widely, irregardless of permission, so we're not going to consider NFCC#4. At the more basic level, at that time, a mugshot would have been developed shortly after its taking and clipped into their file, so for purposes of publication, that's the point that publication started.. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
          • That's what I figured on #4. Now... you are sure that we can't publish watermarked images that Getty is just "giving away" by having them on their site? Facepalm3.svg Facepalm. I was forced to learn hard and fast on the simple basics of image policy long ago; and I'm hoping that it becomes similarly clear in a quick way for GabeMc. Cheers :) Doc talk 04:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Nope, watermarked or not, the bar to include an image that is only available through an image service like Gettys or AP is extremely high, requiring significant discussion on the photo itself. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Hendrix NFCR[edit]

Why no opinion at the NFCR? Most of what I know about his matter I learned from you. Am I wrong to think that File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg does not pass NFCC? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, but since I've commented in three different discussions before on it, I rather appear to push for its deletion. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]


Hi - there is currently a discussion on ANI, the details arn't really important, about NFCR and I think there is a need for more admins working that area. I reviewed the board looking for some possible RfA candidates that participate there quite a bit and I saw that you actually participate there quite a bit. Is there any chance that you might consider changing your role into taking a more admin-presense there instead of editor? I'm also looking at possibly noming a few folks, I currently have User:ТимофейЛееСуда in mind, but I've yet to speak to them. Do you have any other candidates in mind that work that area?--v/r - TP 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm already an admin so the RfA would not be necessary. My major concern is that my role at NFCR has been more to discuss the points, and most probably know I fall on a stricter adherence to NFC. It is possible for me to be more a closer at least in the discussions I haven't been involved with but I've purposely stayed away from direct admin action save for obvious cases to prevent some calling out me as being jury, judge and executioner when it comes to NFC. If you think it is reason to deal with cases that I have not participated in and close them as neutrally as I can, then I can do more to close out discussions. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it'd help if you could be a closer there. But I think we shouldn't put all of that responsibility on you alone. I'd like to at least send ТимофейЛееСуда to RfA and maybe one other. I think in cases of BLP and Copyright, it's better to err on the side of harsher enforcement and so I don't think your take on NFCC will be an issue. What we need, though, are admins who know the criteria well and have experience in applying them. We can't just stick any ol' admin in that area and expect them to understand the application of the criteria in the discussions and whether it's a load of crap or a true application of policy.--v/r - TP 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I do agree with your assessment of ТимофейЛееСуда for RfA. And as long as I have other admins' "blessing" to speak to close when I am direct uninvolved but otherwise considered involved in NFC, I feel more comfortable in doing more, as long as if editors start criticizing me of being involved, I can point to something like what you said here that it is considered okay as long as I'm not closing debates I'm clearly involved with. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as my understanding of WP:INVOLVED goes, being involved in a topic area does not make you involved in a discussion or dispute. That's a broad definition. So unless you were directly involved in the discussion, I think it's quite a stretch to call you involved. I've been called a deletionist and I still close AfD discussions. I think you're safe and I think NFCR needs an admin who is verse in NFCC but might be a bit strict much more than they need an admin who is oblivious to NFCC. Besides, Fastily was considered harsh and he worked that area for years successfully.--v/r - TP 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Another FFD[edit]

So, now that we've proven that critical commentary about the Hendrix mugshot cannot be sourced do we start another FFD, and if so, are you willing to do that, because Doc will blab on and on about any imperfections in the language. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:FORUMSHOP, GabeMc? Open the FfD, by all means. Doc talk 02:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop following me around and insulting me. You agreed with the NFCR and the closing admin recommended the RfC. Please stop badgering and hounding my every move. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You're kidding, I hope. I have commented several times on this talk page; and I am absolutely not "hounding" you. There was no "insult" in anything I posted above. Doc talk 02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding. I think that your behavior has crossed over into hounding and badgering, and I respectfully request that you stop following me around and trying to undermine my every action. You are being a bully, Doc; please stop. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm a bully? Read WP:HOUND. Following "your every action" is described there. Unless Masem tells me not to post here, I am under no obligation to avoid this page. To assuage your fears of "hounding": I will never (quite voluntarily) post to your talk page ever again. You can post to mine anytime you want, however. You see me "following you around" outside of your crusade to delete this image: report me. And you'd better have some evidence of "hounding". Doc talk 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What is your rationale for keeping the image? Do you even have one other than your preoccupation with crime? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I would not be comfortable in the idea of an FFD at this time with 3 concurrent discussions going. I was against the NCFR even going in the place, the discussion should be limited to the RFC at Hendrix. Now that we have shown that the source that mostly likely would have talked about the mugshot doesn't, disproving the supposition of the last FFD's close, the case for removal is now clear at that RFC, and there an uninvolved, should he find the same, should close the RFC and delete the image to stop extending this round-robin of discussions. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought, thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Nah. The RfC is fatally flawed, as it is the only pre-loaded pseudo-deletion discussion that guarantees victory for those pushing for deletion based on a known "no consensus" outcome. Removal based on a "no consensus to retain" will be aggressively appealed, as it is out of process by design. We do not build consensus in this way. Doc talk 03:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
We need consolidation of the RFC/NFCR discussions and closing the DRV, in the first place. Whether to keep or delete the image has to be done at one location. However, calling the RFC flawed is wrong - NFCCE requires that the rational be considered by consensus to be valid, or otherwise it should be deleted. This floating "no consensus" will remain a problem otherwise. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There really is nothing different about this image, or the normal process of handling it; or how the outcome of "no consensus" is determined in cases like this. Nothing in the first two points of WP:NOCONSENSUS addresses images with claimed subjective NFCC issues regarding particular images. We do not default to delete based solely on claims of NFCC failure. And we do not determine a "new consensus" through a sham RfC by utterly ignoring the previous consensus (which is falsely claimed to never have existed). Doc talk 03:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Since the last 3 FFDs on the image have been "no consensus" that means there is no consensus from the start for retaining the image. And NFCCE says we delete if no valid rationale can be made for a non-free; that has to be one agreed to be consensus. The only reason it was keep with no consensus in the last FFD was because of the possible connection that could be made and which has been explored now and shown unlikely to be made. This is the change that now comes into play, in addition to the fact that "no consensus" is not a state we leave NFC in. If you can't justify inclusion of the image beyond a doubt to sway consensus, it needs to be deleted. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not what policy says. And it's not what policy instructs editors to do: the default is plainly to keep rather than delete. Subjective opinions on the NFCC do not a consensus make unless there's an actual consensus. With a policy this wide-open to interpretation, we must fall back on what is already in place for instruction. Opening multiple noticeboard entries on the same issue is not the way to achieve consensus. That's "Consensus 101"-type stuff. Doc talk 04:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
For any other xFD, that may be true, but NFC requires consensus to keep, per policy and the Foundation resolution. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
A quick search of the NFC guideline page for the terms "consensus", "default" and "keep" do little to clarify this position for me. I also suggest that a better source for the Monterey image be found aside from this garbage source. WP:BLOGS clarifies what sources we should appropriately link to, as an encyclopedia. This source fails RS in every way imaginable. Doc talk 05:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
A quick search shows this would be a much better source. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I concur. It should be switched out, then. Will you do the honors? I don't want to ask the uploader, as apparently I've been a'hounding him :( Doc talk 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - but not for me! It's really is better (and ultimately safer) that way. I definitely respect you as an admin, BTW. If I've insulted your character in the past because of an issue we disagree over, I do apologize. We can agree to disagree on certain things, and no bad feelings towards you, GabeMc, or anyone else in this issue. It's strictly business, nothing personal. Cheers :) Doc talk 06:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Inserting MIDI clip in a page[edit]


Do you know of any method to insert a MIDI clip with description in a page? Embedded player does not seem to appear in this case; I tried {{Listen MIDI}} and {{Listen}} too. The first does not accept a description and the second just tries to implement an embedded player.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, no. An option if you want to have the audio available is to record the MIDI yourself as a usable normal audio file which would have the same license as the MIDI. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Doing so entails maintaining license chain, which in turn creates licensing hell for non-free content. I'll create a template. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix and drugs[edit]

Masem, you've made a couple of comments to the effect that if the article only detailed Hendrix's drug use more that the mugshot image might be appropriate. Please don't go there because: 1) Believe it or not, he was not the druggie that people think; reliable sources support the fact that his useage was not anything above average, 2) it plays into the stereotype that he was a drug addict that ODed, but he was not an addict and his overdose was accidental; all he wanted was sleep, not to get high on drugs. I will absolutely not support any additions to that effect as WP:UNDUE, so please don't encourage editors to make a case for Hendrix's drug use as a way to retain the mugshot, because to do so would be to move the focus away from where it should be to a place that it shouldn't be. The preponderance of reliable sources agree that as far as the 1960s, he wasn't as into substances as most rock stars. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Except, that's exactly the route BDD suggested in the FFD close. It is improper not to go there, given how the sources are clear that by the time this arrest happened, he considered himself clean. I'm in no way implicating that he died by drug overdose, but that all the arguments on the mugshot have required me to read the sources and show that showing that he had done drugs but went clean by this point is one of the few reasons to even begin justifying the mugshot, as to explain the "I can't believe this" look he had. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
But DDD does not control article content over what the sources say. He can't demand that we source something that isn't reliably verifiable; thus forcing a WP:SYNTH. He was wrong about that. Its a very minor point overall, but I will tell you that Hendrix was lying about his drug use. He perjured himself several times during the trial, and he later laughed about how ridiculous his claim of quitting weed was. He didn't use heroin, which is what he was arrested for (and hash). Trust me, its a gigantic bag-of-worms that cannot be dealt with fairly in the summary article, but to suggest that they need to build-up material about his drug use to justify the image is a very bad idea. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, as far as Hendrix being surprised about what customs found its interesting to note that during the trial the prosecutor directed a line of questioning regarding Jimi's reaction, and the prosecutor implied that Hendrix said that he didn't see the officer find the drugs, but when asked about them by the officer seemed to already know that they came from his bag. So, to pursue the angle of how surprised he was would be to repeat what sympathetic writers have repeated despite the facts, which indicate otherwise. Here is a link to a transcript of Hendrix's testimony. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Unless you have sources to counter the claims that those other articles have, we have to go with what sources actually provide. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Masem, I own every source that exists on Hendrix. What do you need a cite for, just ask. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
How surprised could he have been if he was warned about it just 15 hours prior. Some sources have him being warned on the plane just minutes before. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring the issue of the mugshot use, if you believe how the drug use and arrest section is presenting a one-sided view of the situation, you should probably demonstrate this on the Hendrix talk page citing the sources that you believe are counter to what are there. If that section is not reflecting the sourcing appropriate, then there is a serious problem and that section has to be rewritten. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you even read the section? Its fine, so please stop implying that I am wrong about the sources. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't you see that the bit about "Purple Haze" isn't a myth, its an error? It was recorded 6 months before Monterey, so the story is complete bunk. How can a song be about a drug that was named after an event that had not yet taken place? And why would we give space to a false story about "Purple Haze" in an overview article about Hendrix that already devotes 14% of the words to drugs and is also as long as it should be? Are you playing with me? Or are you just that confused? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Some people are going to come to the article (before reading anything there) with the myth that Hendrix was a junkie, which you've said from your sources is certainly not the case. Then spell this out for the reader to present that 1) there are myths about Hendrix' drug use and 2) they are false because of various examples you can set. Avoiding these myths when you can say you can prove them false is what you should be doing, otherwise that's sweeping a known issue under the rug. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Read the section and then tell me that there isn't enough drug coverage, okay. It 14% of the article; do you understand that? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


it does not. my restrictions are IBAN related. You could've emailed me before hand, to make sure, but since you assumed, i will edit it for the sake of no more advantageous editors looking at my talkpage and reporting me in ANI for another dumb case of bad-faith. Next time you ASSUME that i'm breaking any rules that relate to that, just e-mail me to verify.Lucia Black (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


sent you an xbox friends request. But it seems like you are still on 360 and Ive moved on to the Bone almost exclusively. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


...[1] The photo credit of "Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department" makes {{PD-FLGov}} 100% valid. I said I wouldn't upload it, but now I'm wondering what would happen if I did... Doc talk 07:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're 100% right it is a valid image in terms of license. The concern I'd raise is the BLP implications; for example if you happened to catch on camera a celebrity doing something lewd in otherwise public locations, while it would be a free image it would also be defamation of character and likely removed on that ground. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]


Hi - you retagged this image as being a candidate for transfer to commons. My understanding is that this isn't true; the image was published in France, and is not yet in the public domain there. For Commons, the rule is "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." I'm not sure how to manage copyright tagging in this situation. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I see that Jan. 1, 2014 was the correct date for the work to enter the public domain in France. Easchiff (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it just flipped over, and I did check (again) to verify France is life+70. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Canadian ePassport Cover (2013).JPG[edit]

Glad that the image is here to stay on the Canadian passport page, but I do have one question. Isn't there supposed to be a {{Non-free reviewed}} template placed on the page by the user who reviewed it? RA0808 talkcontribs 10:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right though I think we're a bit slack in that. But I will add that to the image page now. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! RA0808 talkcontribs 23:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox video game: Technical Director[edit]

Hi Masem, I'm having a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox video game regarding the role of Technical Director. I was wondering if you would like to add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. --- Wrath X ( talk ) 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

2-d and 3-d copyright question continued[edit]

I've resurrected the question and answer you responded to at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and added to it. Much obliged for the information.-- (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

San Francisco Library Photos and Confusing Wiki Copyright Reviews[edit]

You might remember my recent Non-Free Content Review of a photo that was taken before 1923,

  • It was one of a handful of photos that the San Francisco Public Library had given me written permission to use in Wikipedia. I submitted that photo of the docks under Fair Use and it successfully went thorough its Non-Free Content Review process. Since then I submitted 2 other photos that were also granted written permission by SF Library on the same permission form, and were also taken before 1923 suggesting that they are in Public Domain. I submitted the 2 new photos under Public Domain but apparently User:Sfan00_IMG ( is he related to User:Stefan2 of Non-Free Content Review? ) has suggested that their status be changed and tagged the files with templates. And User:Sfan00_IMG has also tagged the Pacific Street Docks photo with a new template. And to add to the confusion, User:Sfan00_IMG came up with differing judgements for the 3 photos which appear to have the same copyright properties. Here are the 3 photos including the same photo that was sent to Non-Free Content Review by User:Stefan2,
  • Can you please take a look at the 3 photos and possibly dealt with the templates, or advise me how to deal with this? James Carroll (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It is unclear why User:Sfan00 IMG thinks that the copyright tag is wrong. The uploader failed to specify where the files were first published, so the copyright status can't be determined. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
      • There is a possibility that the Terrific Street photo can be shown to be PD. Per the link to the SF library archives, I see there is a newsprint caption associated with that; that means it was published in a newspaper, very likely. If that was before 1923, the work is definitely PD. I'd try asking the library if they can date that publication. There are other cases it might be PD if it was after that, but would require a copyright notice if it was before 1989.
      • But Stefan's right here - barring any identification of the photo's publication, the non-free tag and license appear correct. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I am still confused. Which of the 3 photos received incorrect new tags, and how should I deal with that? Is the Fair Use classification of the Docks photo now in jeopardy again? James Carroll (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
          • The uploader should always specify where a photograph was originally published. Alternatively, the uploader could postpone the upload until 95 years have passed since 1977, when it will be sufficient to show that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
            • If the original publication is not known but have been published since (as these photos all have been, through the SF Library), the approach that James took to upload them is proper. the NFCC#4 issue is null here since the SF Library has published the photos even if they aren't the original photographer, and the previous discussion clearly shows NFCC#1 is met. I'm not commenting on how well any of the other NFCC criteria are met, but there's no reason to remove these images on the licensing issues alone. They are still likely non-free due to fully knowing publication though creation date is known, and US copyright law does define the term for such works. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Tagged as wrong license , because if they are pre 1923 they should be PD if US images right? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not true. We have no idea when these were published first, which is the difficulty here. If they were published before 1923, then yes, they'd be PD but we have no clear evidence of that. See commons:Commons:Hirtle chart. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Masem, please tell me if I now have now this correctly...
It looks like the photo that I tried to upload as Public Domain (Dance Halls of Pacific Street...) will have to have be processed as Fair Use, and so I must add the Non-Free Use Rational to the Summary part of the photos file. After that, I still need to attend to its presence on the Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files page. I'm guessing I should say on that page that a Non-Free Use Rational template was added, and also include references to this discussion from your talk page discussion. Can one of you guys pull that photo from the Possibly_unfree_files page's list, or do I have to allow the discussion play out on that page? Should I be doing more to avoid deletion of the photo?
Are the other 2 photos (Docks and Terrific Street), which were uploaded as Fair Use and already have Non-Free Use Rationals in their Summaries, safe from deletion? If so, who has the authority to process/remove the "wrong license" Tag off those photos' files? Can I do that after a brief explanation on the photo's Talk Page? Thanx. James Carroll (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
For the Dance halls, all you need to do is tag it with a non-free license, add a non-free rationale, and then go ahead and remove the "possibly unfree files" template since you've resolved that issue (That will remove that from being listed). Same with the other two photos for now, simply to remove the warning issues. You have every right to fix the issues related to the warning and remove those themselves as they are just tags that put them into categorys; assuming in good faith you fix them, you can remove the tagged yourself. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Masem, why did you remove the template telling that some of the files violate WP:NFCC#7? They still violate WP:NFCC#7. Also, {{oldffdfull}} is for {{ffd}}, but this was WP:PUF, for which you should use {{oldpuffull}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No sooner did I insert the Non-Free Use Rational templates to the Summary, than User:Stefan2 inserted a new complaining template that said that the this old grainy photo had to be Re-Sized? Is that really necessary? Is there any appeals route to allow the photo to stay at its current modest size, which is much smaller than the other scans that the San Francisco Public Library is offering?James Carroll (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Non-free files must have a low resolution. They must also be in use, which not all of the files you uploaded are. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I restored the orphan tags as they are presently not used (that was my bad). James, you should add those images to the Terriifc Street article ASAP - once you do, you can go ahead and remove the "di-orphaned" template. However, Stefan is right that the full size image isn't appropriate while these are determined to be non-free. If we later can access these as free, then we can restore the full size image. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I will have the photos installed before tomorrow. James Carroll (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

Commons experts[edit]

Hi Masem, you mentioned during the Pound image discussion that it might be a good idea to look for people on Commons with expertise on older images and copyright. Can you think of anyone I could approach? I've become quite interested in the image, and I'd like to figure out how we can determine its status. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know specific experts but I've used Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright before to get help. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I see you started a discussion about this there, so maybe I'll add something to it. Thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not in any way trying to delete the image, it's fine as non-free at worst; just want to make sure our copyright bases are covered. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, it's fine. It's just something I've become intrigued by, an interesting mystery: how come there are two copies, how did they end up where they did, where is the negative, etc. I'm sure we'll never be able to find all that out, but I'm interested in pursuing the threads, and if we find it's free all the better. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for if we can absolutely for certain tagging it free :) --MASEM (t) 05:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Overzealous Photo Processor Pursuing New Persistent Deletion Maneuvers[edit]

User:Stefan2 seems like he is obsessing about the same historic photos which have already received much discussion by all of us, despite the fact that the San Francisco Public Library has given written permission for them to be used in Wikipedia. As you recall, first he complained about questionable publication dates, and so we had to change the status from Public Domain to Fair use. Then he further demanded that photos, though old and grainy, be reduced in size.
Well, now he is creating new reasons to have the photos deleted from the articles and is contending that they are not relevant to the articles, despite that they are directly discussed within different articles. User:Stefan2 is again raising the argument of Publication Date as a rational for deletion, even after it was previously discussed by all of us. He is also again trying to use the issue of Replacability as deletion criteria despite the fact that it was previously stated that Replacability is not seen as a significant factor for old historic photos.
Please weigh in on the discussion he has started on the Files for Deletion page . These photos are an asset to these articles of which I have made much research and contributions. His persistent barricades to my efforts to include those valuable photos do not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. James Carroll (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for posting on the issue concerning WP:NFCC#1 , but his complaint still contends that WP:NFCC#3a (Minimal number of items) and WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance) are valid criteria for the deletion of the photos, despite the fact that my response gives evidence that they are not valid issues for deletion in this particular situation.
Could you please also weigh in on the criteria of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as well, otherwise the photos could be unnecessarily deleted? James Carroll (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Stefan2 continues to target photos for deletion which appear in articles where I have made significant contributions.
This time he want to delete a photo from before 1923 which has been used in multiple articles of Wikipedia for 9 years without generating a copyright complaint (link is above). His rational is that there is "no evidence that it was published before 1923."James Carroll (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
He is correct though: when the photo was created is different from when the photo was published, and US copyright law is based on the latter, and as there's no clear publication before the 1999 book, this needs to be questioned as a free image. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


First of all, I want to thank you for all support, assistance and encouragement you've given me, especially with your co-nomination. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be fine with that. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Can We Close Photo Discussion ?[edit]

It has been almost 7 days since User:Stefan2 put the 2 historic San Francisco photos on the Delete List (link follows). Do we have enough of a consensus to close that discussion and remove the Delete Tags from those 2 photos and change their status to Keep? If so, would you be willing to close that discussion and fix the tags?James Carroll (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for a non-involved admin to close it; I can't now. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Well, thank you. I was truly shocked, when someone reverted edit I was making considering WP:AGF, well I just put GameRankings link and score in the article using template {{Video game reviews}}, where GameRankings is one of the options. What have I done wrong to keep reverted ? Greetings, Sir Lothar (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You're running up against one of the more vocal members of VG. As best I know, you really haven't done anything wrong (as long as you haven't edit warred, which doesn't seem to be the case, you started discussion before it got there. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I just added [3]. I don't see anything controversial in it. I have good knowledge of rules (WP:VER, WP:NPOV) from, it didn't break neither of those, so reverting by Hahnchen was wrong in my opinion. Besides, he should behave more politely and shouldn't shout. Sir Lothar (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reeva Steenkamp[edit]

Hi Masem. First of all we've interacted an a few occasions and I thank you for your courteous explanations.

Regarding the Reeva Steenkamp image I uploaded, I noted your remark

If the photo is now owned or managed by Gettys, a photo agency, any use on our end impacts their commercial opportunities for the photo, and that fails our NFCC#2 requirement. Any other non-press agency photo of her would be fine, but the press agency aspect is the problem here with this one.

at the review (already archived) I requested Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_47#File:Reeva_Steenkamp.jpg. I've since gathered that WP:NFC#UUI 7 is the problem:

A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.

In the first place that's not very clear, is it, in the sense that WP:NFCI 8b doesn't make any such proviso and there's no particular reason to suppose there might be. Why single out press agencies?

And indeed you conceded this in a comment on 24 August 2008:

"Remember that WP's image use restrictions are stronger than US Fair Use law. Yes, I think anyone could easily argue that a press agency photo used at WP is fair use, but that doesn't necessarily make it comply with WP's policy. That said, I do see the slippery slope of disallowing press agency photos and no restrictions on others. Say a third party web site uses the press agency photo on their page without attribution but in the spirit of fair use (a very common thing for non-commercial websites to do); a WP editor uploads that photo attributing it to the site with all appropriate and correct FUR. Effectively we now have a press release photo on WP that should fail this guideline but that we can't tell that. I suspect there's numerous images with that distinction on here already. More to the case in point, I think this points to the need to make sure the source portion of the FUR is completed, with images taken off the web using the exact URL they were obtained from."

That is exactly the position I found myself. The history of this image is exactly as I described and it was first credited as a "File photo" by the South African Times.

I intend to retire from editing Wikipedia after I have finished editing at Trial of Oscar Pistorius (I continue with that only because I undertook it as as a favour to a friend). I do mean however to research this particular issue of press agency photographs a little further, because I'm not convinced there is consensus in the community about the issue. Can you point me to a debate where that consensus was definitivelt achieved? I would be grateful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The core issue relating to press photos is from NFCC#2 (policy), that we have to respect commercial opportunities, and since a press agency like Getty has a core business of selling images, our reuse of any images impacts their commercial opportunity. This is what NFC#UUI #7 spells out more specifically. And in regards to my comment, if we had no idea it was from a press agency and best we can tell came from a non-press agency source, we can't bring the NFCC#2 into question, but as soon as the press agency ownership was discovered, then we have to deal with it. In this case, we know it is from a press agency a priori so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
What I'm really querying is the consensus on the core issue of the special status of press agencies. It's not clear to me why they should have it or that there's consensus that they should have it. I really would be grateful if you could tell me when that consensus was reached. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any specific point, but it dates back to pre-2006, when we had a "Fair Use Policy" and today's NFCC#2 was that version's #2. All take page articles from WT:NFC that I see that talk about press photos point out that press photos are themselves a product, so by using them without a very strong case (the one being that the photo itself is the subject of discussion), we are harming their commercial rights. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Thirty Flights of Loving to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


Discussions have reopened. We would appreciate your input. Shadow2 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

Draftspace and NFCC[edit]

Do you have an opinion about draftspace and NFCC images?  Are these handled as if this was articlespace?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, they've been handled as non-main space historically (eg user-space drafts, AFC, etc.) --MASEM (t) 20:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a comment at WP:AI that says that, "Any non-free images in the article must be removed", but it doesn't explain how to preserve the images.  What is current practice regarding ways to preserve articles in user space or AFC?  I didn't see anything on the AFC mainpage, and I don't know where this is discussed for user pages.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
We really are not set up to preserve images if they have been moved from mainspace to userspace. There might be case-by-case basis that images can be preserved (eg the image is deemed likely to meet NFC but the original source no longer exists), but in general our policies are set up to ultimately delete orphaned images that result from these areas. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC) --MASEM (t) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have referred your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Draftspace_and_NFCCUnscintillating (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox television episode[edit]

There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{Infobox television episode}}. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend () 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:VCU Varsity.svg[edit]

We just had an edit conflict at NFCR. While I agree that the logo is not original enough for copyright, it's the SVG code that needs additional attention. So, would you mind reopening the discussion? De728631 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Another World[edit]

Hi, I'm the guy who keeps trying to interject Game Grumps into the Another World (video game) article. You seem reasonable, unlike several other editors I've encountered that don't take no, or yes, for that matter, for an answer. In order to keep this from turning into an edit war, I think we should talk it out on here. So, YouTube, TV Tropes, and Rodeo Arcade all seem to be out of the question as citations. I've taken a look at WP:RS, WP:VAR and WP:VL. According to WP:VL, there are certain channels considered reliable, such as Associated Press, and the only notable channel to have any reference to Mycaruba/Game Grumps is Game Grumps itself.

Obviously I won't get too far if my only reliable source is a video game commentary show run by just a few people, so I'd like to ask for your help on what I can do. --Matthew (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for a reliable source independent of GG to mention this, and that might not happen. Wikipedia generally tries to avoid this type of trivia and hence why we want to look for reliable sources to show an interest in this so that we can be sure inclusion is fine. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 March[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Niemti and Jessica Nigri[edit]

Hi. [[User talk:|Niemti]] and I are once again involved in a conflict on the Jessica Nigri article. I tried talking to him on his talk page, but he again violates WP:CIV, WP:EDITWAR/WP:3RR and now WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, and refuses to respond to my requests for clarification in a straightforward, civil manner. I have started a discussion at ANI. Since you're familiar with past problems involving him, can you offer your assistance? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

This is just a question regarding MLP[edit]

Hello there. I just have a question. Do you like to watch MLP:FiM? I see that you are helping out most of the articles for MLP. Are you a Brony or just one of those people who likes to watch the show? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Menacer NFCC question[edit]

Hey Masem—when you have a sec, could I have your NFCC expert opinion on the non-free image in Menacer#Games? RP said it might be a problem in his FAC notes. I am watching this page for the near future—no need to whisperback czar  01:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hack 'N' Slash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hacking (computing) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

NFC user issues[edit]

As you seem to spend more time focusing on NFC behavior than I do, if you have the time please take a look at this thread and the user's general history. Uploading images to WP from the for-profit Getty that are identified at the source as "royalty free" but still subject to a licensing fee, claiming on a talk page that they are instead merely "commercial free", not understanding that even "commercial free" is not "free" for our purposes, and despite all of that tagging the file as "public domain"... All of this seems so egregious a failure of basic reading comprehension as to be in bad faith. Their deleted contributions history (and recently blanked talk page) indicate a longstanding issue with uploads, so we may have a good candidate for banning from file uploads if not Wikipedia entirely. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I commented and noted that we have actually discussed the situation on those new licensing terms at WT:NFC (which still comes out - nope, can't use). --MASEM (t) 20:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that he had combined them into a montage image that couldn't possibly meet the new Getty conditions you were talking about in that WT:NFC thread for "free" social media use, I don't think he could even claim reliance on that (even notwithstanding that the new terms still fall under NFC here). postdlf (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that definitely can't be used. The first condition Getty requires is the embedding nature, which we can't provide at all. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Steam Early Access games ‎[edit]

Hi Masem, as you are expert on these matters, should List of Steam Early Access games exist? Seems more suitable as a category, but a universal category such as Category:Games tested by public before release would be best I think.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a list would work, or it would need to be like the crowdfunded video game list, in that we require a reasonable source that notes the game is on the service. Categories would definitely work: you would have two considerations, one for "List of games released on Steam Early Access", and likely a broader topic, "List of games in early access" (or whatever name). The latter would only be on an article while it was in early access; the former term would never go away. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

Goat Simulator Page.[edit]

Sorry about any inconvenience, I thought most of these simulation games come from Steam and therefore require Steam to play. Hamerbro

Reference Errors on 29 March[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC at WT:NOT[edit]

At WT:NOT#RfC: Should the reference to Wikinfo be replaced with a reference to Wikiversity? I have made separate support and oppose headings for each proposal for added clarity (as you voted exactly opposite to me but using a different format). I believe I have interpreted your comments correctly and put them in the right sections, but you may wish to verify this for yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Saw that and thanked you for it. :) --MASEM (t) 16:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I saw the thanks after saving the edit here :) Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2014[edit]


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2014
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2014, the project has:


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


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya.
Message added 05:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--benlisquareTCE 05:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

URAA copyright restored images[edit]

Thank you for your support at WP:VPPR#Allow images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration. Until SCOTUS upheld Golan v. Holder I think we considered there was doubt whether this class of images were under US copyright at all. Now it looks as if WMF are suggesting individual images might be under copyright but that this is very hard to establish. Anyway, WMF are willing to host these files and say WMF is legally protected so long as they are willing to do DMCA takedown. I think to call these files "non-free" would be a mistake because people will get confused with "fair use" but to say they are PD may be going too far. Perhaps we have a situation "Might be URAA copyright but, because we are not certain, we allow this file unless we are sure that it is in copyright". How you think these files should be regarded and described? Ideally commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and en:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA would be identical. Thincat (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC) @Thincat: We should normalize our template to Commons' version to help interoperability of such images. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Closed NFC review discussion, continued.[edit]

So, to continue our discussion after we were so rudely interrupted, I am led to propose #17 WP:NFC#UUI:

Propose #17. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 [is not fair use]. However it may be appropriate if the stamp itself is described alongside (#9) in a passage (#8), including sourced commentary (#7). The stamp must have been issued to the public (#5) or become controversial (#4), but it cannot also be used at the same time in its own article, which would take precedence for displaying the image (#6), unless the artwork is in the public domain.

That is based on the following understanding derived from items 4-9.

4. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is controversial. — A map, is not fair use, unless "the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article." — okay when the stamp itself is controversial.

5. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is proper subject for commentary. — An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war is not fair use, unless "the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.” — okay when the stamp image is the subject of commentary, when the stamp has received attention.

6. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 image can be fair use if it does not have its own article. — An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, is not fair use, "if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)” — okay when the stamp does not have its own article.

7. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. A photo from a press or photo agency is not fair use, "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.” Okay when the stamp itself has sourced commentary in the article.

8. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself. A baseball card is not fair use to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds unless "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." Okay when the stamp itself is described in a passage.

9. Use of a a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is discussed alongside the image. A magazine or book cover is not fair use unless "the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary.” — okay when the stamp is described alongside the image.

Thanks for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe we need explicit advice on stamps as the issues we've discussed are pointed covered by other NFCC/NFC. I would however suggest possibly expanding out the advice at WP:STAMPS WikiProject Philately, as well as expanding the claims to any copyrighted stamp that includes post-78 US stamps as well as various stamps from other countries. As well as considering what we found with the Civil War series, that stamps that are just republication of old art w/o other creative changes will be considered free for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to FTL: Faster Than Light may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:
  • | first = Bo | last = Moore | date = April 7, 2014 | accessdate = April 8, 2014 | work = [[Wired (magazine|Wired]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom[edit]

"All things timey-wimey" is a direct quote from the trading card and other Hasbro material; see [4]. (Technically, the wiki is not a reliable source, but primary sources - e.g. the card itself - may be used as a source for obvious facts.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that's the quote from the card, but it is the reference to Doctor Who, which is only "timey wimey" that is being referred to here. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for your message[edit]

Will do my best to follow format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Real Radio/Heart merger[edit]

Hi, you proberly know nothing about radio stations but you may have heart that on the 6 May all Real Radio stations will be rebanded to Heart. I cant remember the users name, but he or she created article Heart Scotland. But why on earth this person do someting like that? Anyway user:Hughpugh discused that Heart Scotland should merged to[[Real Radio Scotland. If this will happen, then would it still be possible to move article name back on 6 May? For example like this: (Specialdude57 moved page Real Radio Scotland to Heart Scotland (station rebrand)). Unfortunetly I cant do that my self yet, because I only edited 5 times so far. Yes I'm new.Specialdude57 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)