User talk:Masem

12 years of editing

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

ITN recognition for 90th Academy Awards

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

ITN recognition for Oskar Gröning

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

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

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

ITN spammer

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

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

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

Cast sections

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

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

impasse

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

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

It is going in circles because you keep insisting that I am proposing text that I am not proposing. And please stop claiming that I am trying to derail consensus building. That is WP:casting aspersions. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you felt I was casting aspersions Objective3000. However, I was very careful not to say any particular editor would derail the conversation. I do not want the consensus to be dominated by any single editor, to be clear. Dbsseven (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is about the discussion at RS/N, where you weren't so "careful". O3000 (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 I believe I have been very careful in my statements on RS/N and the Specter talk pages (and across WP in general). If your feelings were hurt, I apologize. However, if you have specific complaints (and diffs), I am comfortable discussing my statements on ANI. Dbsseven (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. It has been years since I have had so much difficulty communicating with someone. I said nothing about hurt feelings. Please, please concentrate on what I actually post instead of what you think I mean and these discussions will go far more smoothly. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

O3000 please stick to facts and do not attack other users just because their views/reviews of the action do not fit in your view. You alledged AMD to be lying about the vulnerabilities and this has proven to be wrong. It was proposed to show both views in the article (some sites indicated a change in AMDs position which AMD denied) but you don't seem to want even this but stick to your view of "AMD lied". --Denniss (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again you make utterly false claims about what I want in the article -- the restoration of NPOV text improperly removed via edit-warring. Time and again you have misconstrued my position. I fail to see how you can imagine that this is a productive manner of discussion. AMD stumbled. They reversed/backtracked/changed their position depending on which of the many RS you read on the event. Your claim that this did not occur is the opposite of what the reliable sources report. Your insistence that the article be washed of this widely covered change in position is contrary to WP policies/guidelines. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to be honest: when I've read the 8-9 articles you've provided on the matter, the tone does not reflect a hostility towards AMD, outside of one or two, and those are the ones that reported before AMD made their statement. There is not a strong motivation to try to paint AMD as being in the wrong here. Mind you, the same articles don't give us a means to excuse AMD either. I've said that a statement that is along the lines "While some took AMD's news of the vulnerability to S2 as a change from AMD's prior claim, AMD maintained that their position had not changed." is a neutrally-worded statement that captures the sentiments of the day accurately without bias. --Masem (t) 17:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Masem. Back to my original question: What is the best way to then take this proposed language back to the AMD and Spectre articles? There seems to be some support for this language, clearly with objection, but it spread across here and the RS/N. Should the consensus be evaluated on the appropriate talk pages? (I am hesitant to unilaterally add the prose myself as I recognize I am not an uninvolved editor in this discussion.) Dbsseven (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t want any hostility to be expressed towards AMD. The original text did not show any hostility toward AMD. It simply reported what the preponderance of RS said. AMD changed their position. Their original statement strongly suggested that this was an Intel problem, and AMD customers need not worry. The update made an admission that they were vulnerable. But, I am not asking for charged words like “admitted”, even though it was used in RS. I am not asking that $20 billion drop in Intel market cap and increase in AMD stock occurring after the original, incorrect, statement be mentioned. I am certainly not asking that the word “lie” be added as Dennis suggested. The original text used no charged language and was in no way biased. It followed RS, leaving out any judgmental terminology. That’s the least we can do for our readers. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking this text, outside of the word "However" everything is fine. But I think after all the reading I've done for this, I feel it is probably important to quote AMD's statements to be very clear how things went down, but staying neutral. We'd be giving those that claims AMD misled the benefit of the doubt, and AMD the same benefit of the doubt that they didn't change their position. But that's presuming I have the right diff. --Masem (t) 19:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Using differing words, RS say that AMD DID admit/change/reverse/backtrack. RS also used words like however/but. The original text reflects RS. It does NOT suggest that AMD purposely mislead. We don’t know if it was apurpose, a mistaken understanding, horribly worded, or pixies. We just know, from RS, that it was a change and that AMD processors are vulnerable. If this isn’t known by the reader, they may still believe that AMD processors have a near-zero risk and not bother with updates. That would be a disservice to our readers, in addition to not following the preponderance of RS. As for including thtat AMD denies this was a change in position, I have repeatedly said that I am OK with that. We include denials all the time, even when disingenuous. As for providing AMD's statements, they have removed their original statement from the web (except for the web archive), which seems unusual. O3000 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

My issue with your stance is that "AMD DID admit/change/reverse/backtrack", which is just not true. Sources claimed AMD's announcement that S2 affected them was a backtrack, but that's not an opinion held by a majority of sources, but AMD clearly had to clear that up with their later Jan 11 statement. There is no factual basis to state "AMD changed their previous statement". We can attribute this claim and should, and be clear that AMD maintained they didn't but were working on patches to help everyone protect themselves. We do have what AMD had said in Jan 3 and Jan 11 in RS articles, there's no need to go to AMD themselves, and if they actually did change or delete their statements on their website, we'd need an RS to point out that change. --Masem (t) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe this has been stated by the preponderance of sources that reported on the second statement. O3000 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And in its statement later that day, AMD clarified they had not changed. That makes it a disputed fact, which per NPOV we should present the stances with attribution, and not judge either side right or wrong. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As I am understanding it, this incorporates the old language with the new, giving POV attribution "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. While some took AMD's news of the vulnerability to Spectre variant 2 as a change from AMD's prior claim, AMD maintained that their position had not changed." Dbsseven (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fair and more detail for someone researching the situation using WP to help highlight key points. --Masem (t) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We must take care to not mislead the readers using AMD chips into believing that they are at a near-zero risk, as incorrectly stated in the original statement. Over a billion chips are affected. Obviously, now that these vulnerabilities are known, they will be hacked. I would rather have absolutely no mention of Spectre than to mislead AMD users. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A fair concern, which I believe this is clearly addressed in the sentence: "AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre." Dbsseven (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind our general disclaimers. We're not offering advice nor actions. People who misread "near-zero risk" as "no risk at all" unfortunately will have the potential to be affected, but it is not our fault or duty to make sure they recognize that "near-zero risk" means there's still a potential for risk. --Masem (t) 20:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it may not "legally" be our fault. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be responsible. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That begs the question of what degree of responsibility we should have, which again, that's why we have disclaimers so we dont have to worry about any responsibility. A fraction of readers will recognize "near-zero risk" in tech and legal speak as "having some risk", while others will read it as marketing speak to be "risk free". Is it our responsibility to serve those reading it as marketing speak? Not really, and if we start to go there, that's a slippery slope elsewhere. --Masem (t) 20:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Disclaimers are generally useless if it can be demonstrated that a risk was known. That aside, AMD shouldn’t be using marketing speech about such a vulnerability. The original statement said that vulnerability to Spectre 2 hadn’t been demonstrated. Lo and behold, nine days later they had demonstrated it. That’s not near-zero risk. That’s high risk. If they could implement a hack based on the info in a public paper so quickly, others can. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As of today AMD still stands to the "near Zero risk" with Spectre 2 and a successful attack has also not been demonstrated to or by AMD. The attack risk is purely theoretical but will be reduced to zero with microcode updates. --Denniss (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only reason I’m using the word deny is because another editor insisted that they denied that there was a change. And, AMD has admitted that they are vulnerable to S2. I don't have a side. I am using RS. O3000 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where "denied" is coming from but that's an overly aggressive word for us to use when I do not get any strong impression from the whole of the sources that they were accusing AMD of going back. I'm framing that the issue of the S2 vulnerability report and AMD's two statements (that they were vulnerable, and that they had not changed their position) was a controversial, "he-said, she-said" situation that never got resolved to which side was correct, so we just use less accusation wording and statements of attribution. I know from the sources you've list you can pick and choose a couple that are much more accusational, but again, I'm considering the whole of what sources said and have said since, and there are very few fingers trying to blame AMD for anything. Hence the need to use more neutral language than "denied". --Masem (t) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, it was another editor that insisted on denied. Source after source described this as a change in position. But, editors here appear to want to rely on a primary source, AMD, instead of the several secondary sources to suggest that AMD is less vulnerable than other manufacturers. There is zero evidence that AMD is less vulnerable. The suggestion was a primary, self-serving statement that has been removed from AMD's website with no evidence and now not even an existing claim. O3000 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-reading the sources Objective3000 has provided, none say AMD's risk is the same as other manufacturers. In fact two state after AMD's Jan 11th announcement that "AMD’s share value dropped immediately following its announcement today, but it has since recovered, possibly because the company’s chips appear to be less susceptible to Spectre and Meltdown than Intel’s processors" [1] and "...AMD chips may be safer, but they're not invulnerable." [2] Dbsseven (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The "may be" is based on AMD's self-serving statement which suggests, but doesn't state outright, that they are somehow safer. The fact is that all chips with speculative execution (over a billion chips) are at risk. We cannot tell our readers that AMD chips have a "near-zero risk" which would indicate there is no reason to apply updates. This is simply irresponsible. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. It is not our responsibility if people misread "near-zero risk" as "zero risk". --Masem (t) 17:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was already raised [3], and addressed [4][5].Dbsseven (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I said NOTHING about righting great wrongs. For the nth time, I am saying that we should not promulgate a misleading, primary, self-serving claim. And, they aren't "misreading" it. That's what it strongly suggests, most likely because that was what it was designed to suggest. We are also not here to carry AMD's water. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You're qualify AMD's statement as a self-serving claim (it very well might be, that doesn't matter) and then insist that we should warn users otherwise. We are not in that position to make that judgement; that's the problem here. --Masem (t) 17:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not say we should "warn" readers. We should use secondary sources in an NPOV manner. If you look at my proposed text, there is no "warning". Simply what RS have reported. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

And Objective3000 this is not first time you have suggested for "denial" to describe AMD's actions [6][7][8], then claimed you are not the advocate for this language [9]. This is counter-productive and has us revisiting old arguments. (And all our edits are logged and searchable, so these claiming it's another editor is just silly.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This was yet again an attempt at a compromise. Read it. I said that I was OK if that's what another editor wanted. I am really tiring of these aspersions and false claims about what I have advocated. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact others have repeatedly objected to "denial" [10][11][12][13], so continuing to advocate for it is clearly counter-productive. (And casting aspersion is without evidence. I provided evidence as diffs.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what your aim is in continuing to insist that I want text added that another editor wanted. I simply agreed to include it to satisfy another editor. Please, please stop claiming that I want to add text that I don't care about. Since editors keep claiming that I want to add such, let me try this once again. Here is my proposal, with text that editors have complained about struck out:

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

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

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

Fine. That's all I've asked for. Can we get this in before it is challenged again? O3000 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

12 Monkeys-related RfC

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

Suggesting how it should be closed ("no consensus") is "tainting" the close reason. You probably could have left it as being stagnant and not drawing new responses, that would have been fine. --Masem (t) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't really suggesting how it should be closed, simply observing that I didn't think a consensus would be reached. I still believe that. Which, returning to the subject of the film, leaves us in the same place we were more than a month ago. I see no way out of this impasse as long as one editor seeks to impede any progress. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but even the hint that a consensus can't be reached in the closure request is just a bit of tipping the scales. It's not a major problem, just would say in the future the less you say why you need the close, and stick to just asking for a close would avoid any type of concern like this. --Masem (t) 18:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar for you, as promised

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

MH list

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

(talk page watcher) As I said at WT:VG, Monster Hunter is not a large enough article to warrant a size split to a list. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this a couple weeks ago and a couple of other people told me that it was worthy of a separate list.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

• Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

• News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

• Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

• In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

• Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

• Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

• Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

• Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

• Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

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

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

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

Fortnite Battle Royale

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

Request for FA mentorship - Hellraiser: Judgment

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

(No Pressure) If you are uninterested, feel free to remove this message so that I'll know. I can understand if you are busy, as I myself have been late to responding to messages on my own Talk Page at times. DarkKnight2149 21:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - I've looked through the article and don't see anything that stands out amiss for an FA. I would recommend possibly requestion a copyedit via WP:LOCE I doubt it needs much here but it helps to grease the FAC wheels. And I can help if after nomination if there are any issues that you can't resolve. --Masem (t) 21:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, your advice and critique is very much appreciated! I will file the request before nominating it, per your recommendation. DarkKnight2149 22:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Template: wikia on main page

See: [14] I ask you a question.

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

12 Monkeys

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

I'd be very uncomfortable with an ANI for what little disruption there is beyond TE on the talk page. If edit warring starts, though... --Masem (t) 15:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. If edit-warring starts they'll likely be blocked in any case, given they were brought to WP:3RN previously and warned as a consequence. Thanks for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doniago: [15] this is a foot on the line. --Masem (t) 13:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not planning to respond given that a) I don't trust myself to be civil (the urge to snark is high), b) I'd likely just end up reiterating myself, c) despite my best efforts, I'm pretty much done AGF in this situation, and d) at this point I doubt anything I could say would make a difference in any case. If you feel it would be helpful for me to say something despite those concerns, please let me know. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I came here for an unrelated reason, but ... wow, small world. FWIW, User:Doniago and Masem, the 12 Monkeys affair (or rather the behaviour of a certain editor on that page and apparently a bunch of other pages) is presently at ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm well-aware, though thanks for mentioning it regardless. I was discussing this with the filer as well prior to things getting to the point where the case was opened. The situation seems to be well in hand at this point, and I'd feel obligated to identify myself as a biased party if I was to say anything there...but mostly I feel like my first comment here was rather tragically borne out. I really hoped the case being opened at ANI would serve as a wake-up call to them, but they appear to be blinded by their own light, as it were. Nevertheless, if you feel that my saying something at ANI would be meaningful, please do let me know. DonIago (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Judy Kennedy

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

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

ITN recognition for Harry Anderson

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

Vgrelease (Labo article)

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

List of Xbox Live Arcade games listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Atari Adventure question

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

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

Image Upload for Room Three

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

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Sessions v. Dimaya

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 4

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 4 . I can see you have been vocal on SVGs in the past Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

2018 Toronto attack

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

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

You've got mail!

Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For creating Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC‎ - you should nominate it for GA, it was a pleasure to read SeraphWiki (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's probably a bit away from GA, at least in terms of content and referencing. I know there's material near the time the Court granted cert about the impact of rulings (eg if the Court found it unconstitutional, all 1000+ inter partes cases would have to be re-evaluated.) Plus I want some impact statement -I'm seeing some language that suggests this might be a landmark case but that will take a few days to come out :) --Masem (t) 00:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

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

Notifying

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

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

Ready Player One inline cites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Journey into Night

Can you help me main space this? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Prey 2006

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

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

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

New discussion-

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

Another RfC on Net Neutrality

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

Non-free former logo question

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

DYK for Sessions v. Dimaya

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

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

Category:Steam Greenlight games

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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

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

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 11#File:IndyCar Series logo.svg. Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

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

Unconstructive editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Doki Doki Literature Club!. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Catfishlake12 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)