User talk:Masem

Robin Williams

The quick archiving is apparently intended to increase the hegemony in that article. At least it has that effect. A couple of the regulars act like the own it, and can inflict their decisions Ipse dixit before anyone gets a word in edgewise. Its a case of 'fast justice,' as contrasted with a "Speedy trial". Then it disappears quickly into the memory hole that is an archive. I've seen it in practice. So dialing back the archive time would help make the article better — let consensus develop. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ITN sections

Hi Masem,

I liked your ideas on talk:ITN about setting up sections. In general I think people don't realise how good Wikipedia can be as a source of info on recent events, and I wish more of the front page was devoted to this.

Best, EdSaperia (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

• Arbitration report: Media viewer case is suspended

• Featured content: 1882 × 5 in gold, and thruppence more

• Op-ed: Automated copy-and-paste detection under trial

• Traffic report: Holding Pattern

• WikiProject report: Gray's Anatomy (v. 2)

• Recent research: A Wikipedia-based Pantheon; new Wikipedia analysis tool suite; how AfC hamstrings newbies

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I was hoping some consensus could be reached to edit an existing guideline such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization. I have been trying to say that all these guidelines are about how to establish articles and whether something should be on their own page or that inclusion requires sources otherwise names are considered private. but in the event of extreme victimiztion, even of world wide proportions, it is obvious that there is suppression that takes place, and I believe this section alone could warrant a conversation on how "a victim of a crime should not be further victimized or have their life risked by misconstruing information widely decimated in the public domain as grounds for inclusion in the encyclopedia."MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Monsooons

Since im on my mobile i can not edit ITN/C to answer your question. My view is a flooding article for the specific events and the overall season could be warrented/good to have. However, i am hesitant in calling the events of recent days rare.Jason Rees (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You edited a protected page without consensus

Masem, I must ask that you self-revert your edit to GamerGate. There is no significant agreement, let alone consensus, that the Paste opinion should be moved out of where it was, much less removed entirely from the article. It is an indisputable reliable source and merely having an opinion does not render it unusable. Indeed, virtually all of the sources on this issue have opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I understand where you're coming from and I think we can work something out, but removing it entirely from the article right now strikes me very much the wrong way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not entirely lost, it's still in the edit history, and linked on talk page, but it is not a good neutral source to discuss the problem. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful when editing this article, not to give the impression of impropriety. It seems you may be WP:INVOLVED, so it is probably better to avoid all edits when the article is protected. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've only been addressing the immediate BLP concerns, after reverting the above --MASEM (t) 13:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback?

Masem, is it worth it to apply for rollback? I use Twinkle heavily already. While I understand the technical differences between the two, the functional difference is nearly moot in most cases. I've started expanding my editing and am now active in patrolling pending changes and edit requests. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It might help to implement things faster. You just need to be careful and if you make a mistake just be reasonably quick to undo, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No Man's Sky

Thanks for digging up a source for the release date on the No Man's Sky article! m-p{3} (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question for you

Hi Masem, so I have a question for you since you are an admin. I made an account just a couple days ago to comment on the GamerGate topic, since it seemed like the view point was incredibly skewed. Well, I now have two people I think basically mocking me here. I don't know exactly what to do about this, can you give me some advice since youve been here a while? Thank you. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, us experience editors see actions that you have done before as a common process done by a POV-pushing sock/meat puppet editor would do, so it's easy to mistake someone that (in your case I hope) taken steps to familiarize themselves with WP with sockpuppets. I've tried to add a note that they are being too judgemental at this time without other evidence or reason to take action, as we are supposed to assume good faith. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see, I didn't know that was the problem. Just that happening all of a sudden and being called a misogynist, sock puppet, and meat puppet (which I now kinda know what it is), was kinda... alarming? Thank you for taking the time to comment though, I just really had no idea what to do at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability for illustrations

Thanks for commenting on the above. You suggested having clearer site-wide policy - do you have an corresponding amendment in mind? Would you like to collaborate on one? Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 17:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not at the immediate time, as I'd like to see where the argument goes to know what lines might need to be drawn. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

• Op-ed: Media Viewer software is not ready

• Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity

• Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue

• WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GamerGate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate/Depression quest

IMHO, while it's an possible aveneu to name Depression Quest in the text, too much expanding upon it is just unnecessary - best left to an possible Depression Quest page itself, and link to it. Although I'm not entirely sure IF it has a page and will ever have one. MicBenSte (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's necessary: it explains who Quinn is and why she is the subject of harassment. It also through the user criticism of the game introduces other issues that have come in GG, like "message" video games, etc. Depression Quest does have its own article, and the details of the video game go there for sure, but in context of explaining why her ex's accusations sparked this, it's necessary to summarize just enough. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your stance that Depression Quest is why these things came to light. I think it was really the fact she had a relationship with a journalist and the resulting reddit censorship that really kicked things into high gear, and DQ had nothing to do with it.EvilConker (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If Quinn was an unknown developer that there was such accusations, it likely would have not sparked from that. But before the accusations, Quinn was already a target of harassment from some, and with the ex'es accusations, they jumped on that more. It is critical to the situation. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate

Hey man nice work on the background, really clarifies the story leading up to it, I'm discussing this since you seem kinda neutral on the subject and I apreciate that. One thing I disagree with your last edit is just the leading thing, as I understand it, it should give a fast summarized look into the matter without going into details. As it is now the causes are not clear enough since it states "allegations around game developer Zoe Quinn" but doesn't specify or mentions the origin at all, my lead was

GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy that arose after a former boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn, posted details on her personal relationships with individuals involved in the video game industry. The controversy eventually led to discussions on journalistic ethics of video game journalism, between journalists and developer, as well as misogyny and harassment in the gamer community.

It doesn't go into the specific "details on her relationships" and neither specifies what the "discussions on journalistic ethics" and misogyny are, that's what the rest of the article is, let me know what you think. Loganmac (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni

It's not anywhere in a reliable source that we can cite, but Gjoni stated on his blog that he has no evidence or reason to believe the relationship between Grayson and Quinn began before April. There's been no challenge to that statement and no reliable source, so far as I have seen, disputes that the coverage took place before the relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at GamerGate

You are doing a great deal of reverting on GamerGate: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], and that's not including partial reverts. This seems like quite a lot considering the article has been unprotected for just over 24 hours. Please remember the WP:3RR and that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of these are BLP issues (poor sourcing, biased language, etc.) which are exempt from 3RR as to maintain BLP policy. But I am making sure on other parts to take them to the talk page. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how they are BLP violations? Which BLP subjects are being potentially defamed in those reverts? Not every edit that you think is 'bad' is a BLP violation simply by virtue of being in an article where BLP has been applied. In those edits I see you removing negative information about non-specific individuals, removing positive information about specific individuals, and 're-adding negative information about specific individuals. If you intend to continue to revert well past the 3RR under the guise of 'BLP violations' I suggest you get in the habit of explaining how they are violations in the edit summary. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on reverting the edits that reframe the issue as something it's not? I think it's clear that the criticism is about journalistic integrity. The response has been to focus on the misogyny.

However, remember, this is about the hashtag and the controversy that it represents, and I think the controversy is definitely about journalistic integrity and 'clique-ish-ness.'

I'd love to talk to you live so we can iron out our issues, my email is chosencharacter@gmail.com, contact me and we can talk because though I trust you're trying to do the best to keep this neutral, framing the article in this way is innately not-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilConker (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, see the volumes of discussion on the talk page - the reliable sources are framing this as misogynmy, with some attempt to bring out the other arguments about this. Unfortunately, that's how we have to use the reliable sources, and we cannot twist that around. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Robin Williams talk page

You are likely to want to see the following: [9]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FUR-processing in image templates?

Hello Masem, as you are very experienced with all things related to fair-use: do you know some of the background of template:non-free logo (and similar templates) and why checking those images is limited to patrollers and admins (quote: "To patrollers and administrators: If this image ...")? A bit of research indicates, that this restriction was never properly discussed. However the relevant talkpage with more info seems to have been deleted. To be clear, i am not trying to stir up trouble, but would like to understand the process and its background. GermanJoe (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that language is meant to be applied only to patrollers and admins, but as extra advice that as they are scanning through such images to do that step if appropriate. Any other user should be able to do that too, though we would like to make sure they are familiar with NFC and the reasons for that so that they aren't doing that blindly. Can you point me to where you think the discussions might have been? I can see if there's anything there and if there was a different meaning to that. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah nah Gamergate article is ruined

Thanks, I quit for any newcomer gamergate was just gamers getting bored and harassing Zoe Quinn for no reason Loganmac (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)