** 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. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:47, 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. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk: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? [[User:GabeMc|<font color="green">GabeMc</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 22:51, 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? [[User:GabeMc|<font color="green">GabeMc</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
==Nope==
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.[[User:Lucia Black|Lucia Black]] ([[User talk:Lucia Black|talk]]) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
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! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc2123:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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? Glimmer721talk02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
E-mailed you
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.
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 :) Doctalk04:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
MLP Episode 78 "Simple Ways" - Possible Writer Error
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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Doctalk18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. Doctalk18:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Doctalk18:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. Doctalk17:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Doctalk01:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 :) Doctalk01:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? 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 :) Doctalk04:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - TP21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - TP22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - TP23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another FFD
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Doctalk02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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". Doctalk02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Doctalk03:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). Doctalk03:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Doctalk04:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Doctalk05:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 :( Doctalk06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 :) Doctalk06:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting MIDI clip in a page
Hi.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Previous issue | Index | Next issue 
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.
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)
