Jump to content

User talk:Masem/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

clarify

[edit]

I'm not sure if your comment that we don't need to rely on scholarly sources was directed at me, but in case it was, I wanted to say that I agree. I was trying to illustrate the problems with taking that position, not seriously entertaining the notion that we should limit sourcing of the article to scholarly ones. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Manning

[edit]

Hi Masem. I would support the deletion/suppression of Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy due to the numerous violations associated with it as well. What would be the best avenue to follow to make this happen? I don't mind proposing it, but I'm just not sure where to bring it up. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this diff [1] should also be suppressed because it refers to Peyton Manning as a "sex offender." Could you please advise me the best way to bring this up also? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr Ernie on both requests. I see that a non-administrator closed the AN/I thread before an admin could address your recommendation to remove the history of Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. Tracescoops (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the oversight team about that diff and they suppressed it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

[edit]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Top Billin' by Audio Two US 7-inch vinyl Side A.jpg

[edit]

Is the image free to use in Commons? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its only text. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

[edit]

Reference errors on 13 March

[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

[edit]
You're back to the article. sst✈ 07:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sailfish OS architecture.png

[edit]

Hi.

Someone has by mistake marked File:Sailfish OS architecture.png as a non-free screenshot and as a result Teo's Little Bot has reduced to a very useless size. It is a diagram but cannot be read.

Would you please consider undeleting its original revision?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that, though recognize in the future that Theo's doesn't delete the larger revision, that requires a human admit with revdel to do; this appears to have been done by @Closedmouth: following the tags Theo's bot put on that (obviously otherwise a proper action from how the page was presented). If this happens again, you should probably ping that admin to get them to help as a first recourse. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Okay. Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buster Keaton Rides Again.jpg

[edit]

Since the debate over the use of this image continues, let me direct you to the notification placed on the wikifilm group's MOS dealing with the use of an image in the infobox:

"Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article. Poster images can be found at websites such as Internet Movie Poster Awards or Internet Movie Poster Database. If a poster image cannot be found for the film, or if the film did not have a theatrical release, then a cover image of the film's display case (VHS, DVD, etc.) may be used instead."
Please note the following proviso: "In the absence of an appropriate poster or cover image, a screenshot of the film's title card may also be used."
The original screenshot is not a very good image, as it shows Buster Keaton from behind with a title credit superimposed over the image. When another editor notified me that he felt that the image should supplant cover art in the infobox and that it would be "orphaned", as a courtesy, I re-inserted the image into the article. I was careful to provide a rationale for the use of a "non-free" image, linking the "trademark Buster Keaton" outfit that was clearly evident in the photo to the screen persona of the comic actor. I also linked the caption to an authoritative reference source that identified the significance of the clothing that was Keaton's trademark "look". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look carefully at the cover art, isn't this whole issue a "tempest in a teacup"? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be preferable to use this contemporary "poster" as the infobox image? See: <http://alchetron.com/Buster-Keaton-Rides-Again-65937-W> FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put the poster up for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 4. George Ho (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Batman (2016 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gordon. 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) 09:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organic chem pd-ineligible

[edit]

Are these PD-ineligible? czar 18:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are chemical structures - data, not copyrightable , in a standard format, so are uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3

[edit]

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 participant (images only), I am hoping you might give some comments (at least on the images).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SCUMM may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • as a package; the reusable interpreter was called SPUTM, the "SCUMM Presentation Utility (TM)"{{efn|"SCUMM Presentation Utility (TM)", which was renamed on shipment of the game to the name of the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RiffTrax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High definition. 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) 09:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC Three logo.svg and File:BBC Earth logo.png

[edit]

Hi Masemh. Would you mind taking a look at File:BBC Three logo.svg and File:BBC Earth logo.png. These seem similar to File:BBC First.png discussed at WT:FFD#Usage of BBC First logo. I tagged them with {{db-f8}}, but the tags were removed by another editor. Any opinion either way? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That user may be right that in the UK, there's just enough creativity on those logos to be copyrighted. But at minimum, here on en.wiki they clearly meet PD-USonly and can be tagged that way. (I've updated Earth to do that, the Three logo was already there). You might want to ask Commons on their take on those logos, if they confirm they're okay on commons, then deletion is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look Masem. I started a discussion about the Commons images at c:COM:VP/C#File:BBC Three logo.svg and File:BBC Earth logo.png for reference. Do these files still need nfurs now that their licensing has been changed to "PD-USonly"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, PD-USonly is "free" under NFCC requirements. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mystery Science Theater 3000 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • were two official [[fan conventions]] in [[Minneapolis]], run by the series' production company (called "ConventioCon ExpoFest-A-Rama" (1994) and "ConventioCon ExpoFest-A-Rama 2: Electric Bugaloo"
  • = Katie | last = Rife | date = April 1, 2016 | accessdate = April 1, 2016 | work = [[A.V. Club]] }}></ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This day's This Special Day's article for improvement (day 1, month 4, 2016)

[edit]
Skvader - Tetrao lepus pseudo-hybridus rarissimus in the wild at Örnsköldsvik
Hello!

The following is WikiProject This Special Day's articles for improvement's daily selection:

Skvader

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Snipe hunt • Jenny Haniver

Get involved with the TSDAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Share this message with other editors

Posted by: w.carter-Talk 20:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC) using New improved MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of WikiProject TSDAFI • [April Fools!][reply]

Great Deeds Great Words

[edit]

Thanks for blocking that user, but please block them indefinitely. They are an obvious sock of Cow cleaner 5000 based on editing habits. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Great Deeds Great Words

[edit]

Why only a 31 hour ban? This is an obvious Cow cleaner 5000 sock. He will just start vandalizing again once the block expires. —Farix (t | c) 03:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with that case to 100% say for sure but I have let ANI know if someone with more awareness can make a better judgement call to override me for this. I was more worried about the disruption and NPA going on than the sock aspect. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 31 hours for all that? You are a leniant admin! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even disregarding the sock aspect of it, shouldn't they be indefinitely blocked anyways as a clear vandalism-only account? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to be more cautious of using the broom. There's now an active sockpuppet investigation going on, and ANI is notified so if a longer block is warranted, it will be appropriately changed; key to me was the stop the disruption. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CC5K has a long history of vandalism, usually easily identifiable with its repeated attempts to associate Weekly Shōnen Jump with terrorist groups—either al-Qaeda or ISIS—and frequent personal attacks directed at Koavf, who was the first to identify this individual and its sockpuppets. —Farix (t | c) 04:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metroidvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphany. 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) 16:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vorkuta

[edit]

Please stop removing my edit which is well-sourced and relevant. Your coatrack claim is your personal opinion, and that is not enough to remove such content. Or perhaps you are an apologist for an authoritarian Russian regime? 202.161.71.234 (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Economist article. It is about how the Russian media is highly controlled. The mine incident is only mentioned as an example (among several others) of how the media doesn't cover internal issues unless they are positive for the media. It has nothing to do with the incident itself, and while the article does say that the incident wasn't covered by the media, it's not helping the reader to understand the incident, but instead to push the issue that the Russian media is controlled (which would be appropriate on a different page, but not here, that's why is a coatrack). If it was the case that the Russian people were upset that they didn't hear about the accident through their own media and some type of followthough, that might be something, but it has no place on the disaster article if the only source that discusses the lack of coverage is one that is critical of Russia's media. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section it is added under is the 'reactions' section. The lack of Russian media coverage is a relevant reaction. It further explains why there was a lack of coverage: to prevent the people from getting angry with their government. Your claim that the sentence is only mentioned in passing in the article, and hence lacks relevance, is absurd. Those other reactions are also taken from articles where they are not the main subject of the article. I am happy to continue undoing your removal, which only benefits authoritarians and their mission to control the info that the masses are exposed to. 202.161.71.234 (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no reaction through. The Economist article doesn't speak to how the Russian people or anyone else in the world responded due to the lack of the coverage on the media. The mine incident was used as one example of probably any number they could have pulled from to demonstrate the control the Russian media has, and thus irrelevant on the mining article except to push a point like the one you are describing ("only benefits authoritarians and their mission to control the info that the masses are exposed to"). That Economist article is great for Media freedom in Russia which is where criticism of Russian's media should be located, but to push that point into any concept touched by the Economist article is coatracking. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also to stress: your addition claims something that is not in the article, that specifically the story was withheld to avoid angring citizens. While the gist of the article is that the Russia media withholds stories because they don't want to anger citizens in general, you cannot apply that to make that statement: that is WP:SYNTH. This is why it is a coatrack. There's a lot about the problems with the media that can go on that Media freedom in Russia article, but there's no place (without any additional sourcing) for that on the mine article. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autosketch v9 Screenshot.JPG

[edit]

Hi.

I was wondering if you could help me service File:Autosketch v9 Screenshot.JPG. The file seems to have lost a lot of vital details during some bad downsizing. Can you undelete its past revisions, so I could do the downsizing properly?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no previous versions of that file that I can recover (as it was done in 2009, any old versions are likely purged by now). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Adventure (1979 video game)

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adventure (1979 video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I help out with this? I put a a good amount of work into that article intermittently over the last few years and had plans to nominate it for GA myself eventually. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 15:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem with help on required GA fixes and hopefully to FA after that. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Adventure (1979 video game)

[edit]

The article Adventure (1979 video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Adventure (1979 video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Adventure (1979 video game)

[edit]

The article Adventure (1979 video game) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Adventure (1979 video game) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2016

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2016, the project has:

Content

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Let's Play (video gaming), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concrete Jungle. 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) 09:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Guidance Barnstar
For explaining what I needed to know so clearly, comprehensively, and promptly. Many thanks. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sq3junkyard.JPG

[edit]

Hey there. Do you think you could restore this image? It was deleted after being incorrectly removed from its article, Space Quest III, a few months ago. I asked the admin who originally deleted it to restore it, but I just realized they haven't been around for almost a month now. I've got the spot it was in commented out for the moment. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 19:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Torchiest: should be back now. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir. Looks good. —Torchiest talkedits 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an ecumeni...

[edit]

...RE Sim City I totally agree that sort of cruft shouldnt be in the article, but it is a content issue for discussion on the talkpage rather than a question of sourcing. If the argument the editor (who wants to remove it) makes is 'its not reliably sourced!' its a terrible argument as the product itself stands as an unequivical primary source that is verifiable by anyone. I generally stay away from Videogame (and media in general) articles for that reason, as cruft-arguments always devolve into 'I think it should be in!' 'I dont!' 'Waaaaghg'. Now excuse me while I go back to dying in Dark Souls III for the 30th time since yesterday. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: obviously with the closed discussion the point is moot; however, as a member of the VG wikiproject, we actually do have pretty good guidelines of where to draw the line between what is reasonably appropriate to include about gameplay that meets the concept of a general encyclopedia, and things that are clearly better suited for a gamefaq or strategy wiki, and when things should be sourced or not. At least most of the articles I've seen actually don't devolve into issues of what gameplay is appropriate or not, it tends to be more on story and plot side aspects. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure (Atari 2600) has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]

Hello, Masem. Adventure (Atari 2600), an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 23:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate improvement

[edit]

I noticed you've been involved in this topic area for quite some time, but that you don't edit the main article much. I'm sure you also see that the current article is a steaming pile of excrement as well. I was wondering if you had any opinions on the best way to go about improving the embarrassment of an article. There's no way I can both enforce and write, and you have a track record as an excellent content creator. If I can help keep the area free of disruptive influence from all the factions, would you be willing to take point on revamping things? The WordsmithTalk to me 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested, but I would also point to @Rhoark: who has currently built up a good draft version (see the talk page for links) to work from. I have avoided much editing (even before my voluntary step-away in Sept 2015) only because of the combative nature of some on the talk page to refute attempts at more neutral (IMO) writing. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Noticed this conversation here and would be happy to help fixing up the article if needed. GamerPro64 18:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nod. That draft is at User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy. It's not finished, and I owe @Brustopher: some edits/replies, but it at least approaches things with structure and organization. I don't have a lot of time for WP right now, but intend to get back to this. Rhoark (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that while Rhoark's version does cover a lot, I think that a core issue with the current article is the perceived need to address the harassment out of the gate, whereas its clear from sources that there was a lot going on building up to it. This is far from being fully fleshed out for an outline, but I believe that this structure in User:Masem/GG_Draft is a much more neutral and natural way to describe this as a "controversy" that would be closer in line to other controversies on WP, while following the sources that we already have in the current article. Note that here it starts with a background and then a chronological history section that splits up the first few months as to better identify when all these events happened and understand the timing better. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hyper light drifter logo.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hyper light drifter logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Adventure (Atari 2600)

[edit]

On 17 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adventure (Atari 2600), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Atari 2600 game Adventure contained the first well-known instance of a video game Easter egg? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adventure (Atari 2600). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Adventure (Atari 2600)), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 April

[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Binding of Isaac (video game)

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Binding of Isaac (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hey. I am contacting to report a serious copyright violator. Since the matter is simple and dangerous, I thought perhaps it is best if I skipped ANI and call an administrator directly.

Tony0517 (talk · contribs) has uploaded several clearly non-free images and mislabeled them as free:

The affected articles already had good and proper images. Some of them no longer have because the good image is now gone.

Perhaps it is prudent to block him and tell him to request an unblock when he discovered what he did wrong and promise never do it again.

Fleet Command (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FleetCommand: You really should try discussing the issue first. After all, blocks are pretty useless and will only serve to inflame the issue. 2601:5C2:100:9A1:6C85:7:E5A7:C480 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional block. He will be unblocked as soon as he learns. A block only makes sure he does not ignore the admin message and upload twenty more before getting around to visit his talk page. By the way, what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be harassing Codename Lisa? Fleet Command (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned him on their talk page - there is zero reason to place a block before anyone has explained the issues to them. If the problem persists after this point, then we can talk a possible block for willful ignorance, but if no one has explained the issues first, that's far too bitey. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... okay. Sorry, if I am so block-minded. I keep drawing on my past experiences, which I mustn't. Fleet Command (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video

[edit]

my email is landisman3008@gmail.com

talk to me as I'm interested in Wikipedia and in what you're into, so email me k? :) off topic but I hope you will gmail me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.214.18 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stories: The Path of Destinies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star Fox. 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) 10:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maze war.jpg

[edit]

Do you think the screenshot here would pass the threshold of originality? czar 19:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would take caution and say yes to that being copyrighted, but its certainly an edge case. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Binding of Isaac (video game)

[edit]

The article The Binding of Isaac (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Sportsfan 1234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at ApprenticeFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ApprenticeFan work 23:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration evidence

[edit]

Hi Masem.

Your evidence as the above link does not fall within the limited scope of the case as described on the evidence page.

Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas.

As the evidence presented is not within this scope it has been removed.

This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted with permission from the Arbitration Committee.

Amortias (T)(C) 12:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4

[edit]

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing

[edit]

Hi Masem. Thanks for responding helpfully at wp:VPP#Video thumbnail image licensing: Can we use them?.

Although I can be bold, I prefer to avoid it. Would you feel it would be fair use and okay (respecting Vimeo's licensing etc) to upload that example thumbnail for use on List of Google easter eggs? fredgandt 16:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the situation, hmm. I do note that Star Wars opening crawl uses shots from the film and is stored at commons (as they are just text and just not enough of it to be copyrightable). So arguably the tilted text results from Google alone would be safe. Unfortunately since the feature is now disabled , one can't make their own screenshot of that. The Egg was clearly notable (I can find several RS hits on it). So my gut says that it should be okay to use the screencap from the vimeo, but consider one might also just use that image from the crawl page as a secondary option. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking so closely :-)
I don't think the real crawl can be used, since it doesn't depict the subject 'egg, but I like the reasoning for at least the possibility of using the vimeo thumbnail. I'm tired and blurry right now (never a good time to do important things), so will sleep on it.
I appreciate your input; I don't like this legal stuff. fredgandt 23:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undertale

[edit]

IDV fleshed out its plot today. Think it should be taken to GAN? GamerPro64 23:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of video game terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Theft Auto. 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) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roguelikes

[edit]

Hi, regarding this [2]. I know that source claims Dark souls is an edge case, but it's not even that. It's a crappy claim from a crappy source. I'm no genre warrior, but that source is just bad journalism. I'd be fine with (referenced) inclusion of Spelunky, Binding of Isaac, Risk of Rain, or many many other games as rogue-like-like, even though many RL fans would vehemently disagree. We can cite sources for all those, many times over as edge cases/ roguelikelike/whatever. Here's the thing: I know it's allowable to include Dark Souls in the article, based on that ref. I'm asserting that we shouldn't have DS in the article, because it gives completely wrong impressions, and is at odds with the rest of our article. It has few, if any of the key features our article describes. This gets at the issue of verifiability vs. veracity. I can point to sources that say the moon is green cheese, but you'd not want me to put that in our article on the moon. What's different there is that you can find a bunch of sources that say the moon is not green cheese because that is famous nonsense, while this claim that Dark souls is even an edge case of RL is so silly nobody would both to refute it in print. I did find this [3] consensus that DS is not RL, and even though that's a forum thread, I find it more reliable than the USgamer piece. Did you read the paragraph in the source? They say it is RL because "Dark Souls carries with it the same ominous atmosphere, tension, and danger as a roguelike. " The thing is, none of those are characteristics that make things a roguelike, not according to our article, not according to any source I've read. By the logic of this source, Resident Evil and Einhander are both edge cases of RL. That is nonsense. Do you see the bad logic? Again, I know this is allowable, and I can see why someone put it in. But what I can't understand is why you'd revert my removal -- including DS just makes the article worse, and adds nothing. I'm happy to help find as many other well-referenced and less cringe-worthy examples as you want, if your feeling is that we need more edge case examples. Genres are inherently contentious, but if we use "atmosphere, tension and danger" as sufficient criteria for RL, then the term has basically no meaning, and we should merge it the roguelike article with video game. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: After consideration of this, I agree you're right that the single source makes it a super weak case for inclusion - its more on the thematic nature and being a "hard" game rather than possession of gameplay qualities which can at least be argued for games like Toe Jam & Earl and Diablo games. I've undone my undo of your edit. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for being open to a little friendly persuasion, and thanks for the re-re-vert. Dark Souls is definitely notable and distinct for its difficulty. I don't know that this term is notable enough for a WP article, but IMO the better classification for Dark Souls is "Nintendo Hard" [4] - that fits much better, limited checkpoints, lots of player deaths, lots of enemies at times, feeling of danger/tension/pressure, etc. Happy gaming :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot originality

[edit]

Hey Masem, would you know whether the composition of an in-game screenshot would ever constitute sufficient originality so as to require the permission of the screenshotter? For instance, in a freely licensed game, does every screenshot automatically become sufficient for free use or is the player's permission ever needed? czar 17:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The art assets would also have to be freely licensed. For example, some of the first games that passed through the Humble Bundle had been released as open-source for the code/engine, but the graphic art assets were still copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But assuming that the assets and code/engine were all free, a player's creativity in composing whatever screenshot within that would would never be sufficient for its own copyright, like a photographer's composition? (Also, unrelated, but that do you think about this logo and the threshold of originality?) czar 18:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. taking the hypothetical if Garry's mod and all its assets were free, the composition as per a photographer for making a movie or scene would still be copyrighted. But on the other hand, if it is something obtained using the game engine and not so much composed but just simply a result of gameplay, even if it is a super-difficult move, that would not likely be copyrightable by the person performing the move, since its mechanical application of the game engine. I can see it would start to get very iffy depending on how much player agency there is : less so in a game like Super Mario Bros. or Sonic the Hedgehod, moreso in a game like Civilization V. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metroidvania

[edit]

More release info is not "too much detail", it's just adding in the name of the publishers and the regions the games were released in, which is a basic piece of information found in any video game page. Please do not revert my edits on this. Thanks. Phediuk (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's information appropriate for the video game's page, but not the page on a genre. We don't do it for other genres (see List of first-person shooters, or List of god video games. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a ton of game lists that have all of this information already, far more than that don't from what I can see. Examples blow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_video_games:_1975_to_1985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_flight_simulator_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_golf_video_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baseball_video_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_graphic_adventure_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_exclusives_%28seventh_generation%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PC_exclusive_titles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sega_Genesis_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_published_by_Nintendo

And a whole bunch more where those came from. The Nintendo one even names the lead designers! There is clearly no rule against adding publishers, and appears to be encouraged by other game lists here. I believe you are acting in good faith, and want to see the Metroidvania list improved, which is why I'm asking you to please stop reverting basic information that is already, demonstrably standard practice on other pages. Thank you. Phediuk (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you are adding far too much detail than any of these other lists. I can accept adding the primary publisher, and the first country of publication, but all the different countries of releases doesn't make sense for this list. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooter game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battleborn. 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) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Binding of Isaac (video game)

[edit]

The article The Binding of Isaac (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Binding of Isaac (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation icon

[edit]

What's your take on File:Playstation logo colour.svg re: the threshold of originality? czar 18:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very much an edge case, if it were me I would play it safe and treat as non-free, but I can't say that it has to be treated non-free as an absolute. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about File:Jakanddaxterlogo.gif this logo? czar 10:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely non-free. It is not a "typeface" (you can tell the differences between the 3 "a"s and the 2 "d"s) so definitely falls into creative. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use question

[edit]

Hi Masem. I have a question about the non-free use of File:IUICL v2.01 poster.jpg and since it has to do with computers/software, I thought you'd be a good person to ask. On the surface, I don't see how this particluar file's non-free usage complies with WP:NFCCP. It basically looks like a poster of text, which should be something that can be replaced with a free equivalent per NFCC#1 and I don't see any specific discussion of this particular poster within the article, so the context required by NFCC#8 also appears to be lacking. However, based upon the long and complicated Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65#Clarification regarding general legitimacy of video game screenshots, things might not be as simple as they appear. In your opinion, is the non-free use of this file compliant with NFCC. Should this be discussed at FFD or tagged with "di-disputed fair use rationale" if it is not? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an online editathon

[edit]
You are invited...

Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

SWIFT hack

[edit]

Hello, I saw that you made significant contributions to the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack article, so I thought I'd reach out for help. I decided to be bold and start an new article on the clusters of attacks utilizing unauthorized access to SWIFT to send fund transfer messages to, well, rob banks. And the ongoing investigations into links to North Korea. It's just a start, please help! Chris vLS (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images of perpetrators and/or victims

[edit]

I was defeated when images of perpetrators, most of them nominated by me at FFD, were deleted per your arguments. I had to abide to the criteria policy when I could not overcome the outcomes and your convincing words. However, I felt too tired to continue nominating such images anymore. You saw my message of leaving soon, didn't you? I won't be able to nominate any more of those images at this point. When you see such images, can you take over part of my role and nominate more of them whilst I'll be gone soon? I would appreciate it. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must rescind all of what I said earlier more than a week ago. Maybe I can focus on pictures of victims as well as perpetrators. But I should be busier in real life because I'm in college now. Still, I was frustrated because I didn't work well with certain others in specific groups. George Ho (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on image for good topic icon

[edit]

So, thinking that I might be able to do a Good Topic for the Ace Attorney series at some point, I figured I might as well put together a topic icon. I have created two variants - one with the "spark" symbol and one without. These are, of course, in reference to the series logo. Do you think the "spark" variant would be okay to upload on Commons, or will I have to settle for the simpler variant?--IDVtalk 11:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IDV: I would be wary of the spark version. Given we're starting from the Japanese game titles which also include the spark, the threshold of originality for Japan seems to only cover text and not simple graphics, as the US would have. I would consider that a copyrightable element for the Japanese game, So the plain AA part would be fine, but the spark version would be PD only in the US. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, but I imagined something like that would be the case. Thank you!--IDVtalk 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment you made

[edit]

I've been reading the proposed decision talkpage in the pending arbitration case (I haven't been as successful as I might have liked in staying away from following the case, especially since I'm not convinced there should ever have been a case—but that's not why I'm posting this). I noticed your comment the other day that "the forced limited scope makes it impossible to state that there were problems, and I'm confident that given general trends of what has been happened off-wiki (well beyond the bounds of GG) that is slowly influencing on-wiki events, we'll be at that again in the near future". I've read this several times and I am not sure what sort of trends and influence you are referring to, or what problems you are predicting are likely to recur. Since you seem to have a specific concern in mind, to the extent it's not inappropriate to post about it here, I'd be interested in your explaining what you are referring to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full explanation is rather detailed, but its understanding two major issues outside of en.wiki:
  • The controversies arising from the far right / alt-right against the left-leaning mainstream media, part of the larger culture war that is happening out there.
  • The increased used of opinionated journalism used in mainstream to combat shrinking readership from competition with Internet, blogs, and clickbait sites.
Because of WP's visibility as a credible reference, this external situation is creating a situation that the larger en.wiki needs to discuss to figure out how to manage neutral writing in light of both the changing media and how Wikipedia is seen as a battleground for these types of conflicts. GG may be the most visible of such a combative atmosphere, but I have seen it happening in other areas of WP like gender and race issues, religion issues, LGBT issues, politics (particularly with the current US election), and more. These conflicts often come down to pigeonholing any opponents, including labeling those that simply don't agree with a viewpoint as the problem. We're not going to change the outside world, but we have to maintain WP as a neutral entity. I think
Unfortunately, what's happened is that in addition to SPA-type editors from the right, we also have editors that stand on the left that can use the left-leaning media and our policies and guidelines and source to writing articles that follow the party line of the mainstream media, which may not be a neutral treatment of the topic. That extends to when admins and others also take this approach who need to be extremely careful if they are taking unlateral actions (as Gamaliel appeared to be doing in the GG topic area) to avoid personal opinions on a controversial topic. It's fine to express opinions in a consensus discussion, that's what that's for, even if those get heated, but in taking solitary admin actions, that's got to be fully avoided.
I hope that explains what I'm getting at. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for taking the time to formulate this reply. I understand the points you are making. Personally, I am not convinced that the challenges you describe have worsened in kind, rather than just in degree, in recent years. People have been trying to use (or misuse) Wikipedia to gain advantages in the areas of political, social, or ideological controversy ever since Wikipedia gained its search engine prominence circa 2005. That being said, if you *or anyone) have suggestions for how we can improve our processes, it would be good to discuss them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate edit

[edit]

Regarding this edit, I'm not certain that it indicates an expansion to all media. GG's criticism of Gawker quite possibly stems from Gawker being the parent company of Kotaku and Jezebel, which are strongly anti-GG. I'm not sure if there are RS to support that and I'm not directly touching the editorial content, but if you happen to come across something it might be worth considering. Regards, The WordsmithTalk to me 18:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Quoting the NYTimes source I used (emphasis mine) "The Hogan case had become a cause for online groups like GamerGate, a loose movement that started in opposition to perceived problems in video game journalism but has since become a broad and often aggressive campaign against the news media and what members refer to as “social justice warriors.”". I'm aware that Gawker media is directly at the center, but's pretty clear that GG's media interest is broader than just that. Only going off my monitoring of the GG forums, I can tell that they are looking for any type of media problems (for example, calling out the media on their coverage of the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, the recent Missou/college safe spaces issues, the whole issues around the Ghostbusters movie, etc.). It's just that this is the first time - without resorting to sites like Brietbart - that this is the first time its clear that GG wants to cover the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Just wanted to bring that up. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:FFXIIPotionPremium.jpg

[edit]

Do you think this a product or a sculpture? czar 23:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around it does not look like you can copyright a bottle (Coke has their bottle trademarked but not copyrighted) as a utilitarian object, but that said, with the picture of the box in the back, which would be protected by copyright, this would be a non-free image. The bottle alone could be photographed as free. Note that I'm assuming that this was not a one-off product. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
  2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
  3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
  4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
  5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
  6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Episode Groupings

[edit]

I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, few editors have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thoughts on threshold of originality?[5] czar 05:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming its a US company/brand, it likely falls under the TOO. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steam_(software)#Sector_competition

[edit]

The sources do not really back up the first sentece of section. It is also an inaccurate description, Steam began when digital distribution was in its infancy.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon is MOBA

[edit]

Main source should be Paragon's official page. Paragon is not typical hero shooter, because it has MOBA-like lines, MOBA-like minions, better choose other hero shooter game from source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoblu (talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that Paragon doesn't seem like a hero shooter, but it is sourced to an RS that it is one. Some of the other hero shooters like Battleborn (which I've played) do have MOBA-like lines, and thus the definition is very loose. The distinguishing feature appears to be the level of immersion - MOBAs from overhead views, while hero shooters are 1/3rd person approaches. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for LinkedIn

[edit]

On 15 June 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article LinkedIn, 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satoru Iwata

[edit]

I noticed you did a revert, and while the template might not have been intended for civilians, what's the problem with it being used for business people? I think this user wanted a template to designate the predecessor and successor of a business position, is that not a good use for this template? McKay (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Last Guardian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashback. 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) 09:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spam parent categories

[edit]

And as of the parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mythology-based_video_games it needs Celtic and Chinese too. (And Greco-Roman not "Greek".) --94.246.144.29 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Egyptian & esp yes, Japanese need be filed. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the category and the sub-cats are non-diffusing. A game can be classified into both. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's for all the other mythologies. Including Celt and Chinese right now. Also African, American, Slavic, & so forth.

I've reasonably filled Norse already. Used to be only 4 until today now it's 40 plus. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Greek" needs to changed. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Greco-Roman_mythology_in_popular_culture and there films etc. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for Jap - it's not just gods but everything with oni, yokai, etc. Which means hundreds of games to go there, yes. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter, you can do one for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Judeo-Christian_mythology_in_popular_culture too. Quite a lot of games have named demons, for one. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Games in any of those mythology categories should be games that heavily feature the mythology elements, and not just name-drop them. Something like God of War or Okami absolutely need to be in these categories, but a game that just happens to feature an oni but not central to the game (such as Sleeping Dogs), should not be included. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Sleeping Dogs. So would be dandy if you at least relayed it somewhere so they'd it maybe. Bye. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I meant - like Onimusha has no gods. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 June

[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the life of me...

[edit]

...I am trying to think of a stamp that deserves a stand alone article - that isnt already waaaaaay out of copyright. Penny Black and Treskilling Yellow and other rare stamps are old enough its not an issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, The Whole Country is Red. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inverted Jenny would be another example. But you're right that in general, an individual stamp or stamp series itself is rarely notable as a stamp (the topic on the stamp is a different story). Which is why once in a while, the use of a non-free stamp may be appropriate to illustrate a topic that is on the stamp, but not always. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I would say it would always be for 'rare' stamps (if they merit an article) since they often involve printing errors or mistakes in some way. The exceptions being withdrawn due to odd circumstances (King dying on the same day stamp was released being a good one). Sadly I had to sell my collection years ago when I could no longer care for it, and needed the money. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels on the bus query (Most watched YouTube)

[edit]

I understand that it is open to interpretation as to whether it is a music video, but the definition of a music video is: 'a short film made to go with a popular song'[1] and therefore I would class this YouTube video as a music video, would you agree? Thanks

Brazil (1985 film) quote citation

[edit]

Apologies if I attributed the Tom Stoppard quote incorrectly, and thanks for the fix. I pulled the quote from the Wikipedia page about Tom Stoppard and assumed the link to that page was sufficient as reference. Is this not best practice? I'm an infrequent Wikipedia contributor at most. Thanks! 76.119.167.214 (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:QUOTATION quoted material must be sourced directly; I found that reference on Stoppard's page and its clearly repeated, so not a major issue to fix. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove "stylized as INSIDE" on Inside (video game) article

[edit]

Inside (game) is stylized as INSIDE, it is NOT written in capital. Check Xbox One store or Steam for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate GrammarGate

[edit]

Hi, I need help. I picked you at absolute random as someone who has been recently talking on the GamerGate page. I'm not sure where to place my suggestion about the page, and I'm brand new to Wikipedia so I can't even comment on the talk page, let alone edit the damn page.

My suggestion is petit, but it would help the page achieve a higher standard of professionalism, ot at least I think so.

That article currently reads... "Beginning in August 2014, Gamergate targeted several women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian."

I believe that this should be changed to... "Beginning in August 2014, Gamergate targeted several women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian."

I know that is just 3 words, but every small edit counts towards a bigger goal.

Maybe I am blind, but I don't see the grammatical reasoning for 2 "ands".

Whether you are pro, anti, or neutral, I hope you can help me; either by directing me the right way, or raising this issue on my behalf on the GG Talk Page. Thanks! :D R00b07 (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, I see nothing controversial to at least add in better grammar. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help and the speedy reply! R00b07 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sro23 edit war.

[edit]

blocking 8 hours. 188.32.100.23 (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the history of Tajik language, and the IP-hopping edit-warring, to determine who should be blocked please. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 07:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Team Fortress 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby. 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) 09:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Easy Lover by Philip Bailey and Phil Collins US 12-inch dance remix front cover.jpg

[edit]

I uploaded the seven-inch front cover of the US release of Easy Lover. It looks similar to the front cover of Chinese Wall (album), so I replaced it with this image instead. Now that the UK cover is kept at Commons, I wonder whether the US front cover is replaceable. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the linked image in the section header, there is a possibility it might be PD-uncopyrightable. Its a set of type faces (including the vertical text) and a relatively simple design (dot pattern, gradient, and rounded rectangles), but you might need to get a second opinion on that. I would check with the music wikiproject about the image if it is non-free, as I don't remember if they prefer the first-published cover or any representative cover (in which case you could replacement it). --MASEM (t) 19:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People at c:COM:VPCOPY said that the font is too stylized to be free, so the image is considered unfree. If that's the case, shall the UK front cover replace the US one? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the ALBUM guidelines is that one should use the cover of the first major release, regardless of free or non-free, so the US one should be used regardless (and the UK one being PD does no additional harm) . But note that I have inquired further about the typeface things, that affects a lot of images if that's true. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2016

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2016, the project has:

Content

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

League of promotions

[edit]

Best to consider UFC more a promotion than a league, or a franchise in the wider league of the competitive market, under the oversight of the various government commissions that've adopted the Unified Rules, but otherwise leave it to the promoters/managers and their individual booking/coaching staffs. Players come and go between teams, helping them rise or fall. There's no tournament structure like in "real" leagues, and title shots are often awarded to the crowd-pleasers over the winningest fighters. There's no hierarchy of promotions, so it's a race to make the most money to sign the best players to stay at the top, just like in baseball. The MMA scene is basically MLB and UFC is essentially the Yankees, so that's why the prices are similar. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

I guess even the North Americans "didn't get it" after all. Perhaps it wasn't such a big deal after all? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not next to McGregor vs Aldo, but still big. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, July 12, 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

[edit]

Hi, Masem. I'm just posting to let you know that List of songs in Guitar Hero Live – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 8. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna Holiday first UK vinyl cover art Golden Arrow montage.jpg

[edit]

The image is currently used in Holiday (Madonna song) as alternative cover art. Does it pass NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely yes. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎File:Mariah Carey - Love Takes Time US cover.jpg

[edit]

I contacted the administrator who deleted the image per FFD. However, he has not responded because he hasn't edited for at least seven days. Shall I take the case to deletion review, shall I wait for that person, or what else shall I do? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a valid deletion since the cover art is not very different outside of aspect ratio and placement; this version doesn't appear necessary. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The CD image of Love Takes Time is not valid; it is of a promo-only release in the format. The cassette cover is the commercial one. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think there's that big a difference; while it might be true the cassette form was the first, its still essentially the same cover art for the purpose of illustrating the article on the song. You could DRV if you really think the cassette version should be used instead, but I don't think that it really matters here. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NMS PC release date

[edit]

Per the official website, the PC release is now August 12. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my change when I saw that. It hasn't been officially announced, and Steam still says the 9th, but until we have better soruce, the official site works. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No Man's Sky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Games

[edit]

Chapter preview, book site – A chapter or two for you in here. Likely that they'll either be (1) useful for, or (2) unabashedly rehashing your articles czar 17:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a few chapters that look interesting, thanks! --MASEM (t) 18:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Skin gambling

[edit]

On 29 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Skin gambling, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the value of gambling using virtual cosmetic weapon skins for the video game Counter-Strike: Global Offensive was estimated at $2.3 billion in 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Skin gambling. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Skin gambling), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire

[edit]

FYI, the 'Pioneer' fire NE of Boise was getting close to the tiny town of Lowman Friday and voluntary evacuations were advised. Per the Boise paper:

By 9 p.m. Friday, the northern edge of the fire came within a half-mile of Lowman, and fire crews were most concerned about a new spot fire west of town, said Erin Darboven, spokeswoman for the agencies fighting the blaze. She did not have an estimate of how close that spot fire was to Lowman but said it likely wasn’t as close as the flames south of town. Firefighters spent much of this week preparing to defend Lowman and redoubled those efforts Friday as fire activity increased.

So there may be cause to reactivate the ITN nomination. However, trying to do a roundup of half a dozen fires in as many states seems unwieldy to me. Sca (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


ArbCom case about TRM

[edit]

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man at ArbCom. You and he co-administered ITN alongside other admins, so you might be involved party. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Two years ago ...
games
... you were recipient
no. 951 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

[edit]
Humor Barnstar!
For making me laugh upon seeing your reply to a comment of mine over at ITN! Thanks for the laugh! Palmtree5551 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UUI#17

[edit]

Hi Masem. I am wondering if your foresee any further progress being made on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#Application of WP:NFC#UUI #17. The discussion seemed to be moving toward some kind of resolution when it got side tracked again at the end. I saw you were busy with stamp thing, so I figured I'd wait and see what happened. The thread, however, has been archived and it appears to have dropped off the radar of those involved. The way #17 has been applied to such logo use at NFCR and FFD does seem to have been consistent over the past two years, but it won't probably be too long before a logo being removed for that same reason leads to someone questioning whether applying #17 is appropriate; this in turn probably means we have to keep having the same discussion time after time. I think your suggestion of "primary teams" is workable and worth further consideration since I could see the logo being used in the association's article and the main men's and women's teams' articles being acceptable per NFCC#3, but don't think the same can be said for youth/reserve teams and other sports like futsal and beach soccer. Such an interpretation might not seem fair to some, but I believe it is true the WMF's goal to minimize fair use. Anyway, I suggested that an RfC be started and limited to soccer, but not sure now if that's worth the effort. Do you think an RfC is still a good idea, or would it be best to just resolve this (for soccer at least ) with continued regular talk page discussion? FWIW, I am asking you because you were involved in the original discussion on adding #17 and also participated in many of the early NFCR discussions regarding its application which sort of set a precedent for later discussions. Any suggestion on how to best proceed would be most appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile to do a straw poll (shoudl UUI#17 be modified to reflect association/premiere teams regardless of sport). If the issue is divided, then an RFC might be needed. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never started wither an RfC or poll before so I'm not totally sure on the right way to do it. I've seen some RfCs before, but don't ever remember coming across a poll. Would you mind helping me do this or if you're busy perhaps pointing me to a couple examples of each that I can use for reference. Finally regarding your definition of "association/premiere" teams, I am assuming (based upon the WT:NFCC discussion) that it does not include youth/junior/reserve/olympic teams. Does it include national beach soccer and futsal teams, or national sledge hockey teams in the case of hockey. These teams might be "professional" in some cases, but they might not in others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)A[reply]
To me, the line would be for leagues where games are regularly covered in depth (not just box scores) in sports pages and frequently receive television broadcasts, indicating there's a strong commercial interest in the league at that level. As for starting an RFC or the like, it's probably best to look at WP:RFC for details, but key is to try to reduce the question asked to as narrow a facet as possible, and make sure to provide areas for further discussion as needed. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video games with procedurally generated levels

[edit]

So you can tell me which article in Category:Video games with procedurally generated levels boasts the amount of possible combinations it can generate in the lead? It's not a new concept, nor does this game introduce any new or unique way of doing it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hugh number of planets that exist in the game is a point mentioned in nearly every source about the game. It is unique because those are all were "created" at the point of the game's launch and to be discovered and claimed by players, rather than levels or the like generated "just in time" as the player players. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

[edit]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use question

[edit]

Can I get your take on fair use in a GA-nominated article? Edmund Kemper is a very grisly article about a serial killer, so you don't even really need to LOOK at it much less read it, as I don't think it's necessary to answer the question I have: Every image on the page is copyrighted with a FUR, of either the (living, incarcerated) killer/article subject, or his (deceased, obviously) victims, including multiple family members. Is that acceptable? I'm specifically concerned about NFCC #3a and 8. Any thoughts or pointers? Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not - its not only failing NFCC#3a (far excessive use) and that since none of the victims are individually notable, NFCC#8, it also fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL since their inclusion seems to be to pay respects to these victims. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I'm agree with Masem in that the non-free image use in the article seems excessive. The appearance of his victims is not really the subject of any sourced commentary within the article, so using just to "show" these people is really just decorative use. Removing theses would not, in my opinion, be detrimental to the understanding of what is written. It may seem cold and perhaps even disrespectful to say so, but these file are not essential to the reader's understanding of the article, so they should be removed. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages as well as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 21#File:Rodger small.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg might be helpful for reference. The FFD's were about images of perpetrators, but the same also could rationales could easily be applied to victims.
As for the images of Kemper himself, the infobox one may be OK since it's supposed to be a crop of File:Edmund Kemper (mug shot - 1973).jpg, but it's lacking the licensing information required per WP:F4. The other three non-free ones of Kemper are questionable non-free use. The ones of him as a youth and sitting at his desk as a prisoner do not satisfy and NFCC#8 and also possibly NFCC#1 and NFCC##3a; moreover, it seems like it would be a tall task to get them to do so. The non-free use of the one of him being escorted to court might be able to be justified if Kemper's physical stature in comparison to police and other officials was covered by reliable sources and such info was added to the article. Normally, I would be nominate all of these for discussion at FFD, but not sure how appropriate that would be while the GA review is ongoing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll incorporate that into the article review. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case opened

[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images for Living people

[edit]

You told me that the restriction of using fair use images for BLP is from foundation. I have to contact foundation to convince them.

I want to take a middle path. Please think about images which are free to distribute for non-commercial use with modification. They can't be uploaded in Wikipedia. This can be changed. As images like this taken on May 26, 2016. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do that. "Non-commercial use" fails what the Foundation treats as "Free" (all end uses must be able to reuse with modification). --MASEM (t) 13:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if you see this image above, it's not copyrighted. And Wikipedia is not commercial. Why uploading it is wrong? We are not going to earn money by uploading that image here. I am missing something. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia can use it, reusers of Wikipedia'a content would have to check with their local laws to determine if they can. All free content on WP is meant to be reused and modified by anyone, commercial or otherwise. If that is not the case, then the image is treated as non-free and thus must fall within non-free allowances, which as this is a living person, is prohibited. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COATRACK

[edit]

Hello, i'm not sure if you remember but at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#D.Creish you took issue with the Jared Taylor article for having a coatrack in the first sentence of the lede. I subsequently removed that hook, but it has been reinserted by editors with brilliant reasons such as "you're wrong". I was wondering if you know how to proceed with something like this? Thanks. Zaostao (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are conveniently ignoring that fact that the reasons you are wrong are already discussed on the Jared Taylor talk page, Zaostao, and the "you're wrong" is merely a summary of those arguments. Because, in fact, you are wrong to apply WP:COATRACK there. Rockypedia (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following me around wikipedia, it's nice to know you care about me so much. Zaostao (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/video?q=music+video
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_18&oldid=1143157129"