This is an archive of past discussions with User:Masem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Masem. You removed information from a press release in an article stating that the information cannot be used as it is copyright. May I just point you in the direction of the following information to help you understand what a press release is and how the information can be used. View this Wiki Article for more information on Press Releases.
A news release, media release, press release or press statement is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something claimed as having news value.
A news release provides reporters with the basics they need to develop a news story. News releases can announce a range of news items such as: scheduled events, personal promotions, awards, news products and services, sales, accomplishments, etc. They are often used in generating a feature story or are sent for the purpose of announcing news conferences, upcoming events or change in corporation.
To sum it up. Press releases are pieces of media which can be videos, images, text that are released into the public domain by the company the press release relates to. This information can be freely used to write articles and produce news stories in order to increase awareness on the topic of the press release, information from an official press release from the game studio (in this case the beatles rockband developers) can be freely used within a wikipedia article. The format of the information entered by the change you reverted was not in teh correct format so your reasons for reverting the information based on the format was correct. However your assumption that the information is copy written and cannot be used is incorrect because this information can be used, I believe it is just because you do not understand the concept of a press release.
Here is the link to the Beatles Rock Band Press page [1] all of the information on these pages can be used publicly as these are images, videos and information that the company has made available to the public domain for the purpose of promoting the game and increasing awareness of the upcoming features for the new game.
I will give you a hand with the Beatles Rockband article and help write up some of this press release information into formats that can be used in the article as well as add some of the new images.
I reverted your shortening of the Chrono Trigger Story. Although the original section might have been too long, I felt that the result was too short. I was also concerned since you consistently misspelled Marle's name, that perhaps you weren't familiar enough with the game to produce a concise description.
You might consider creating a summary description as a separate section, followed by the more detailed description. That would have the advantage of allowing somebody who just wants an idea about the game to read the summary, and let the fans see the detailed description. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)(Talk)17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Article importance is an assessment of a topic's importance in understanding a specific higher level topic. Assessments are maintained by WikiProjects and reflect the project's view of what is essential to understanding their scope. In the VG Project's case, all importance scales are in terms of understanding video games.
Recent discussions at the VG Project's talk page have called for revisions to the practice of assigning article importance. The discussion began in mid-November with the goal of clarifying what level of importance should be assigned to certain type of articles. It eventually expanded to creating a standardized table of importance to serve as a guide for current and future editors.
The discussion has focused on and shifted to several topics including flaws of previous practices, new ways to view assessment, other project practices to emulate, and specific articles which are exceptions to proposed guidelines. A brief pole and discussion determined most editors felt that the bulk of some topics—specifically individual video game, series, and character articles—were not essential to understanding video games, making them ineligible for top importance. The discussion then shifted to tweaking the wording and layout of the table.
The current proposed table is being discussed on the project's talk page, and the issue of whether some topics—specifically character articles—should be allowed to be rated importance has also been brought up. As always, member are encouraged to voice their opinions and engage in discussion to determine consensus so the new assessment scale can be implemented.
How repetitive. :) I was wondering if you would think it appropriate to post a notice to the policy/guidline talk pages that he frequents, in case anyone there would like to comment on this case? BOZ (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Just clearin' some things up...
This edit doesn't make any sense, because I didn't add that stuff... I'm just wondering why it said "To last edit by Moocowsrule" when I never made that edit... Moocowsrule05:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK good. I was worried that somehow it recorded me as making that edit... It just made no sense as the history said it was somebody else who made it, but the edit summary said it was me who made it... Moocowsrule06:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Your notice
Masem, I would really appreciate it if you could contact me on my talk page if you have a problem, before you file more ANI threads about my objections as to whether certain policies and guidelines actually have consensus among the community. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Masem, I'm going to replace the images on Saints Row 2's Wiki page. I'm going to take a few from here. I'll be using the map of Stilwater and some from the screenshots section. What ones should I use? VG Editor (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Maybe a map won't be needed, but I will find some good images for the page no doubt. I wanted to bring your attention to the Development section of the article. An expansion tag has been placed here, yet nobody seems to contribute to this section at all. If not you, do you know anybody who is good at writing this sort of information and would be willing to expand it? When compared with Grand Theft Auto IV's Development section, it really looks far too brief. VG Editor (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have six potentional images: 1 (weapons), 2 (plot), 3 (gameplay), 4 (activities), 5 (diversions) and6 (vehicles). Which ones do you think are the best for use, and do you think any of the old ones should be kept in the article as well? 07:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by VG Editor (talk • contribs)
Of these, the only one I would find to be usable per WP:NFC guidelines is #5 - as it shows an optional activity (BASE jumping) as well as what the Stilwater skyline looks like as to help with the setting. All the others are rather "generic" and don't help the general reader appreciate the game more (since its hard to tell if they are unique to the game). It would be really helpful to find an image that shows the GUI aspects of the game in addition to a key aspect of the game (see the first SR's article). --MASEM13:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I know it would, but most images that have GUI aspects of the game have a big, fat IGN or GameSpot logo on the bottom of it. VG Editor (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for starting it, as I'm quite sure that outside voices really do need to be heard in this. The discussion was just going around in circles. Have a barnstar of your choosing. :) --Izno (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the draft also, but I suggest you direct it to the really unsupportable behavior. If you concentrate as much as you have on the edit warring part over the articles, there is the obvious response that he isn't the only or perhaps the most serious offender. As for editwarrring over policy, perhaps you should distinguish more between arguments you don't like, and things that are truly disruptive. We once were able to work together on things of this sort, and perhaps we will be able to again. DGG (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
In March of 2009 on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), you added a "proposed" tag to the guideline. Have you been following this page? The editors on the page say there is consensus. Can you give me a brief history? There are 40 pages of archived material I would have to go through otherwise. travb (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you. I just realized you happen to be the same person I was talking with at the retribution article. Thanks. travb (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 —talk23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I ran the numbers on the RfC and found more than 70 registered contributors. I also added all people who contributed more than five edits to the RfC to the involved parties list. I made a few other additions as well [2]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
So now we have yet another poll. When will this end? I've called for the new poll to be closed. It's inherently biased and (though I haven't mentioned it) some of the options are blatantly against policy. The poll's also morphing after opening now too [3], and lest anyone be confused we're also keeping track of the votes now too [4]! Voting's consensus, right? <cough> --Hammersoft (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
A search bar has been added to the archive box on the VG project talk page. Searching the discussion archives is now much easier.
Feature: Video game notability
Video game related articles fall under niche categories on Wikipedia: "Culture and the arts" and "Everyday life". Because of this, they are often required to demonstrate notability more than other topics. Wikipedia defines notability as "worthy of notice", and considers it distinct from fame, importance, and popularity. Though it is acknowledge to be related to fame and the like, it is important understand that being famous, important, or popular does not mean a video game article should be on Wikipedia.
Being notable means that a topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia's policy also stipulates that this only presumes to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that though an article may meet the criteria on paper, it is up to the community to decide if a topic truly is notable and/or violates other policies such as WP:NOT. In short, just because a video game, character, or related topic exists, does not mean it should also exist as a Wikipedia article.
Dealing with non-notable topics
Articles that do not meet the criteria are either deleted or merged into a relevant topic.
WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) handles the deletion of non-notable articles, among other types, and has an established process to begin discussions about reasons for deletion.
If an article is a subarticle of a larger topic, merging it into the larger topic article is a more desirable action. For example, the main character of a video may not be notable, but has received some mentions in reviews. It would benefit both topics, the character and its video game, to include the content into the article of the video game; essentially using a small, weaker article to strengthen a larger more notable article.
Things to remember
The best way to show notability is to provide reliable sources about the topic.
Notability is less about keeping articles out of Wikipedia and more about making sure readers are provided articles about significant, quality topics.
While you may think a topic is notable, others may disagree. Try to keep a clear perspective when assessing notability so discussions can reach a consensus.
AfD is more of a last resort and is not always the best course of action to take.
Consider starting a merger discussion first, as some editors may not fully understand why an article they started is not suitable for Wikipedia.
I'm troubled that you view my request for arbitration as "forum shopping": could you expand on that a bit? For my part I've avoided arbitration for the past few months in the hopes that an RFC would provide meaningful guidance or at least open up a dialog for potential compromise, but my view has dimmed in light of the constant automated removal of date links during discussion and clearly when there's a lack of consensus. Obviously directly asking them to stop has proven futile, so what else is there to do? So long as the delinking continues unabated there's no incentive for the proponents to seriously consider compromises (they are, afterall, "getting their way"). —Locke Cole • t • c05:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello - perhaps you'd like to discuss the issue on the gow2 talk page? I'd argue that her appearance is significantly more human compared to any of the other locust ever depicted in the course of the series, and noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in the article. Thoughts? - matt lohkamp15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Threshold
I confess, I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) by your vote in this AfD. Aside from the fact that the assertion that the sourcing is unchanged from the previous version is simply untrue (and I have no idea why Cameron is insisting on that particular lie), I did not think that you were the sort to make a strained policy legalism argument against a source in lieu of looking at the situation as a whole.
I mean, if you really, looking at the fact that three of the most significant figures in online gaming called the decision of the previous AfD out as wrong, looking at the fact that some work and digging got at least three more reliable sources, and looking at the fact that people are on the talk page looking for more sources and finding leads, see an article that's non-notable, that's fine.
But say so. Say that, even looking at the experts, even looking at the improvement of the article, you don't think this cuts it. Don't mount a strained legalism argument against a source and buy into Cameron's falsehoods about the state of the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I thought it better to ask here, rather than debate on the Evidence page, but are you sure that day-month combinations are not covered by the RfC? (In The RFCs have both clear and unclear results, you wrote in, "other ways of presenting dates, such as year alone or day-month alone, do not fall under this", my emphasis.) If I alter my settings to MDY, for example, I see "On 13 January in the same year" (that's [[13 January]]) as "On January 13 in the same year", which I believe is autoformatting, just like the day-month-year case. My uncertainty on whether you see the same as I do, leaves me unclear about whether the next paragraph of your evidence discusses bare month links or day-month links, which I perceive as somewhat different issues. Anyway, it's not a big deal, and it's possible I'm completely mistaken. If not, any clarification would be appreciated. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a number of questions regarding the "Unofficial Songs" section included in the article, with a number of editors questioning the reliability of the various sources. Since you've been a frequent editor for these articles, I'd like to request your input in the matter, if you are able. Thanks! -- TRTXT / C15:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, you may be interested in the proposal I'm floating over here: [5]. Basically, my idea is that being a hardass in improving fiction articles is too important to be left to people who want to delete fiction articles, and that a real and unapologetic push to improve articles or abandon bad sections needs to be made - but that, on the other hand, it needs to be made in a way that does not overwhelm the structures we have for improving articles.
Wanna help in explaining what the tags mean to the inevitable hordes of angry editors, and helping them through the process of fixing articles? I figure I'll do comics as a trial program, and if it works, think about organizing a general Fiction WikiProject to start pushing this throughout the project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
ARS for Resistance 2
Hey, How are you doing?. Can you tell me what is ARS stand for?. Iam not sure either what makes Resistance 2 too fails WP:N. Has this game is already released and there is bunch of reviews, previews, interviews, press and others. How exactly does this fail WP:N?. Iam clueless. From seeing his contribs i can say that is vandal only account. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Barnstar of Peace
The Barnstar of Peace
It's hard to put into words how much I admire your coolness, patience and sanity in the FICT RfC. Thank you for doing that thankless job, even if it's voluntary. – sgeurekat•c15:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Survivor-hidden-immunity-idol.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Survivor-hidden-immunity-idol.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Anyway, compare [6] with [7]. It seems like the same kind of vandalism to the same article, i.e. use of "dildo". I have noticed a decent amount of other vandalism to that article and wonder if an IP block is worthwhile, checkuser, etc.? Best, --A NobodyMy talk07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This issue we are trying a new type of newsletter feature: "Featured editor". This is a chance to learn more about the various editors who contribute to the Video games project as well as the roles they fill. If you enjoyed this new feature and would like to see similar interviews in future issues, please drop us a note at the VG newsletter talk page.
David Fuchs (also known as Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs), is a long time video games editor that has written a large number of the project's Featured articles. He has been ranked high on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, and has assisted in reviewing and editing more many. Recently David has begun to assist with image reviews for Featured article candidates, and branched out into other types of articles in addition to video games. He can normally been seen on the project's talk page offering advice and his input on the various discussion taking place there.
What drew you to Wikipedia, and what prompted you to begin editing?
I got involved due in part to (I believe, my memory is fuzzy) finding the site while doing research for Advanced Placement Europen History during high school. My earliest contributions (in December 2005) were creating topics based on what I learned, as well as creating an article for my high school with another friend. I soon became involved with editing topics related to Halo video game franchise, specifically the article on the parasitic Flood.
What got you involved in writing Featured articles?
I think for most editors it's a shiny accomplishment you are striving for, and natural for most editors to try and get an FA. I first nominated an article for FA in 2007, after about a year of inactivity onwiki; it didn't pass as it was poorly written and didn't follow our guidelines for writing about fiction; I also took a couple of tries to get my first video game FA (Halo 2).
What article(s) are you most proud of writing or exemplifies your best work?
I suppose Myst is a sort of accomplishment I can point to; I started work on the article on May 2 2008, when it looked like this, and submitted it to Featured Article Candidates one day later. I think that's some kind of record, but I dunno. In terms of being a good read or something I'm very happy with, however, I'd have to look at my more recent work, specifically Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Bone Wars.
How do you pick the articles you work on?
Whatever hits me. There's many articles I haven't gotten around to editing and improving as planned because another article has caught my fancy.
What advice would you give to editors seeking to write quality articles?
In the words of one of my favorite cartoon characters when I was a child, "We must do reeea-search!" Even in video games, online sources don't usually cut it. Even after getting an article to FA, make sure you continually trawl the internet and elsewhere for more information to add to the topic.
Note: This is an abridged version. To read the full interview, click here.
Please clarify your "vote" in this debate. Since a deletion results in the removal of a page's edit history, it would be a violation of GFDL to then merge material afterwards. To properly merge the edit history of a page needs to be retained. Hence, a vote to delete/merge combines to unmixable opposites. - Mgm|(talk)10:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Mind if I co-nom the FAC? I was hoping to bring it to FAC one day in April 2008 and was still hoping in the past month. I was also going to give the article another copyedit this weekend, but as it's already at FAC, I guess I'll do that sooner than that. Gary King (talk)17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sick to death of this. We already had debates ad nauseum about fair use images in lists. We already decided this long ago. that's how the guideline was modified to codify the decisions that were reached. It seems like at every opportunity the fair use inclusionists are doing everything in their power to undermine the policy and guideline every time a debate shows the slightest spark of interest. There isn't a single damn article on Wikipedia with 50 or more fair use images on it. Not one. Oh but this is a special case? This is somehow unique? And gosh we've got to include that 1920 image of a mill that JHeald's ancestor worked in because well gosh he wouldn't understand it's a cotton mill without that picture. <forehead slap over and over again> WHY oh WHY oh WHY do we have to argue these things endlessly? Vent Vent Vent. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed our IP editor friend is back and adding that non-existant Vol. 3. There was a user that was blocked for this, who then went through IP channels to start a full on edit-war (as one sided as it was). I'm thinking if it starts up again we should get the page semi-protected. If it's the same user, they won't stop. I recieved a talk post in which they claimed to work for EA doing beta-testing. Which is their "source". -- TRTXT / C05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've recently been working on Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney to get it to an approximate B-Class/GA and I only have one minor issue. I haven't actually finished playing the game, so I'm unsure about the accuracy of the Plot section. Since you seem to have played the game (correct me if I'm wrong), could you take a look and possibly add some more info about the final case to the article? Oh, and I tried to keep the section as short as possible, but I fear that it needs more context and information, so I can expand the other Turnabouts if needed. Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR( t • c )04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
CoD 5
Just to let you know that I changed the synopsis's length according to the GA review after/during the review. It was much longer beforehand. The GA reviewer has since said it's okay at its length. It also has the same structure of CoD 4 (characters and plot sub-sections), which is a FA. In the GA review it was pointed out that it would be good to follow it as an example, although not at the same length of plot. JollyΩJanner19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
My inclination is to prefer the previous version to yours. Thanks for your revision though! If you see any individual sentences or phrases that are overly detailed then their removal or editing would be much appreciated. JollyΩJanner21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Guideline in debate covers all sports
Masem, a point being lost in the debate is that this guideline modification doesn't cover just university sports. It covers all sports, amateur and professional. This "final version 3" would permit an onslaught of fair use images where no free alternative exists. For example, Arizona Diamondbacks seasons and the 12 season articles it links would be permitted to have File:Dbacks.png or File:NLW-ARI-Insignia.png on them. That's just one major league baseball team, and one with a short history as yet. Think of every sport out there in America plus the rest of the world. If this "final version 3" were permitted to stand, it'd open the floodgates. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been working revising the downloadable content section of the page to be consistent with are lists for Guitar Hero and Rock Band with that table format. As you can see on the talk page for the IP, which has made a number of valid and useful edits, IPs from that range however have also persistently added claims that no more DLC will be released for this game only to have new DLC made available. Am I right that such claims of DLC ceasing should not be added unless if there is a press release, new report, etc.? For example, just because Xbox LIVE got a bunch of songs this week and so far PS3 didn't does not necessarily mean PS3 won't get these songs as PSN hasn't even been updated yet this week and won't until Thursday. Best, --A NobodyMy talk19:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
(2-21-09 2:05 PM ET) I have caught up the page for now. When the game comes out in North America in a few days there will be a lot more to add. Can it please make it the main article for the Wii version? Thank you.
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
Just so you know, I have passed the GA review of Braid (video game). A very well done article... I left a few comments about images on the GA review page, but otherwise everything looks excellent! Great work! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Inre the arbcom cases you mentioned...
Would they have any bearing on 63 articles being nominated at the same time? I mean... this would make it impossible to address the issues in all 63 before the clock runs out. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio) if you might. Personally I feel that each article should be reviewd one-by-one to see it if does of does not meet criteria and then one-by-one addressed to either improve or delete. 63 at once? Yikes. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That should be userfied back into User:HK22's userspace as originally requested when I prodded the article. What happened was that Guinea pig warrior (talk·contribs) moved the article out of HK22's userspace back into the mainspace. I kindly ask that you appropriately restore it and try to tell Guinea pig not to move it back into the mainspace until it's ready for its own article. MuZemike15:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The VG Project Collaboration of the Week is a new effort to improve important video game articles of low quality. Every week, an article is random selected by AnomieBOT from the Stub-, Start-, and C-class categories that are rated either High- or Top-importance. Such topics can offer a reader a good deal of encyclopedic information about video games, but are often too underdeveloped or lacking the proper level of writing and sourcing to accomplish this.
All editors are welcome and encouraged to participate by offering their insights and suggestions. Having a pool of different editors, both old and new, will help maximize improvements to the articles as well as our editing skills.
History
Collaborative efforts have come and gone within the VG project several times before. The first such effort, the "Gaming collaboration of the week", began in October 2004 as a result of the several otherweekly collaborations popping up on Wikipedia. It proved to be quite successful at improving articles to meet Wikipedia's standard at the time, but the effort eventually saw less and less participation. A second effort, the "Improvement Drive", began in August 2005 with the intent of improving articles to FA-quality. However, few nominations and articles were selected. The decline in participation in the collaborations and peer reviews resulted in a third effort. It began in February 2006 as a workshop, but never got off the ground.
Numerous discussions have taken place on at WT:VG to jump start collaborations and improve the process to prevent its decline again. While previous collaborations selected any video game article, most editors felt focus should be on video game topics more encyclopedic in nature—topics that are also generally in poor shape because of lack of attention. A common problem mentioned was that previous nomination processes were lengthy and hindered participation. The current idea to automate the process was brought up by JohnnyMrNinja, which was further discussed to iron out the details.
Current collaboration
The current collaborative efforts began in mid-January 2009, and several articles have been improved by editors. The random choice is intended to minimize the selection process, which allows editors to focus on article improvement. Improvements include better organization of content, massaging and copy editing the prose, removing excess non-free images, and much more. The random choice is also meant to encourage participation from editors of varying interest and help prevent burnout. If the present selection is not to your liking, wait until next week. Editors are encouraged to add Template:Collab-gaming to their watchlist to see which article is selected. Recently selected articles are:
I noticed you made an edit to Patapon. Do you think you'll be working on it again soon? If so, let me know - I'd like to help. — Levi van Tine (t – c)12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Who Cut Roger Rabbit?
What exactly have you got against my contributions to the plot section? What is wrong with stating that Marvin Acme is the owner of Toontown, since it is an important factor in his murder. "Excessive detail"? Are you implying that some readers are not smart enough to understand my contributions to the plot?
--Marktreut (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Infamouslogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Infamouslogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability
fyi; I just noticed this and you may already have seen it…
Were you planning on opening a discussion on the Admin noticeboard about PF, or just going to let it go for now and see if he decides to calm his tone? I find it funny that the WQA was closed with the reasoning that the proper place is the ArbCom, who subsequently closed it because the proper place is the Admin Noticeboard. BIGNOLE (Contact me)05:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Ace attorney objection.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Ace attorney objection.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Video game importance
You recently switched the importance level on various exclusive Xbox 360 games. I agree with you that maybe games can’t be of top importance in WP:VG but not for WP:XBOX. WikiProject Xbox is of much smaller scope (Ex. WP:XBOX= 469 articles, WP:VG, over 21,000). If games can’t be of top importance explain why you didn’t switch WikiProject Halo's importance on Halo 2? BW21.--BlackWatch2100:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video games Newsletter released its first issue a year ago. The newsletter is meant to help connect editors, keep them up-to-date with the activities of the VG project, and improve the knowledge of our members. We've compiled a list of questions to help gauge the effectiveness of the newsletter's first year.
Answers will be accepted for a three week period following the deliver of the March 2009 issue on Wednesday, April 1, 2009. Just to clarify, this is not an April Fools' Day gag, and we would really appreciate honest criticism. Information obtained from this poll is intend to alter the newsletter for the better. So don't feel you should hold back or give answers similar to everyone else.
The VG Barnstar is an award given to Wikipedians recognized for efforts and contributions to improve and develop video game related articles.
The VG Barnstar is one of many Wikipedia Barnstars designed to be given to editors that have helped further the overall quality of Wikipedia. It was created in February 2006 by Jacoplane—see past discussion for details—and has been given to numerous editors since. Sometimes editors with multiple Barnstars use an alternative way to display them: ribbons.
Barnstars are designed to be given by anyone, so don't be shy as everyone enjoys appreciation. If you have noticed or have been impressed with the work of an editor, feel free to let them know by placing {{subst:Barnstar VG|"message" ~~~~}} on their talk page. The template uses a parameter to include a message expressing the reasons behind the award.
Image tagging for File:Guitar Hero Metallica Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Guitar Hero Metallica Logo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I noticed your edits to the page... might you be agreeable to a collab? I can hunt down plenty of refs, but reception sections in particular are my weak suit, and I know from your VG work you can do a pretty mean response bit :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've exhausted one source, but I've still got an American Cinematographer I can mine for more info; there's also a big long list of possible sources on the talk page; I'm not sure what kind of resources you've got access to, but finding as many of those as possible would be great. Once I'm finished with the immediate production info I'm going to start trawling for print sources via LexisNexis; if you're up to writing the reception section, I'd be happy to route them all to you. Other than that, it's whatever you wanna' do. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk)01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
" Do not link to albums if the songs lack articles"
Hi -- noticed your rv/comment, and wondered why this would be an appropriate restriction. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but my still thought would be that as part of building the web having a link back to a relevant piece of information about a song (in this case, what album it's on) would be of use, and I don't see any downside to having such a link.
I can't remember where we decided it, but it would have been determined in the Guitar Hero setlists. Basically, because the game does not associate a song to an album, we can't assume a song is coming from a specific album (it may be live, and particularly with cover versions, it's sorta misleading). --MASEM
I've reverted your comment as part of a fix - the RFC template fails to show text put inside of it, for some reason, robbing the poll of context. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
IP Attack comment
Screw you you stupid communist. Go ahead and block this ip. I'll find another. I can never be stopped. Obama is a communist bastard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.255.44 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(Masem, I sectioned this off of the original post as it was not relevant to the Shoemaker comment. Feel free to re-title as you think it should be titled) — Ched : ? 07:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Exit2-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Saints Row gameplay issue
We seriously have an issue here with the gameplay sections in Saints Row and Saints Row 2. I know you were only trying to help by snipping a lot of the information from the SR2 article but it was too much and now relevant information is missing and some other information is contained within the SR1 article. There is only one plausible solution- merging the gameplay sections from SR1 and SR2 into their own article- 'Common gameplay components of the Saints Row series'. Your thoughts on this? VG Editor (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but just so you know, you did take off way too much information. Considering Grand Theft Auto IV now has a longer gameplay section. I'm going to combine information from both articles on the series page tomorrow, maybe. VG Editor (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Masem, I was wondering how you take box art with a PS3 side logo on it and then make it neutral. I wanted to know how you did that because that would really help me when I'm writing VG articles.
Example:The Beatles: Rock Band cover
--Next-Genn-Gamer (Sign) 18:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)\
Hey, I've updated Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Retention to reflect the current state of play with the Guitar Hero topic. I hope it's all accurate. You have until 19 July to get the two new On Tour articles up to scratch and into the topic. Also I think that, formally, you should remove Guitar Hero: On Tour and Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades from the topic by way of a supplementary nomination - so for the time being, the articles still appear here. Feel free to leave this til the Metallica songs sup though, which I know you're working towards :P rst20xx (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, every problem talked about at Guitar Hero: Aerosmith's FA review has been fix. Should I renominate it?--Gearsof War2(NGG)01:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Masem. I was hoping you could help me out with something. Right now, the FAC for Damien (South Park) seems to be hung up solely on the image rationales for the infobox image and the Omen comparison image. If the Omen picture has to go, I can live with that, but I can't see justifying cutting the infobox image. I'd appreciate it if you could go to the FAC to voice your support if you think the images work, or to provide me with some feedback on how they can be fixed if they aren't. (Of everyone who has criticized so far, nobody has provided any helpful feedback yet). It's over here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Damien (South Park)/archive1. Thanks! — HunterKahn(contribs)22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Plot Sections
Okay, a User recently offered to review Blue Dragon and Gears of War 2 for me. But he said that since neither had cites in the plot section. Is that really criteria?--Gearsof War2(NGG)21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good Faith Revert
My apologies for deleting some of the Dead Rising talkpage. I've been in an argument with a load of thirteen-year-old spammers/flamers recently and, frankly, I was starting to see the other person as one. Again, sorry. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Something I'm working on
I've been working on trying to create a unified guideline for what fiction articles are - something that's more fundamental than WAF (which is just a MoS for fiction), and instead deals with the basic problem of what it means to cover things that are not real in an encyclopedia, and what fundamental issues that involves. My hope is that by clarifying that, dealing with the notability issue becomes easier. I've got a draft at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction. I'd welcome any comments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm contacting a few people who took an interest in the video games WikiProject guidelines last year, to let them know of a project I'm working on. It's strictly in the interest of collecting information, but I think that information could prove useful for refining our guidelines and policies.
Wow, you're a quick one ;) don't know if you've played the game, I just thought it could be pointed out that the phrase has played a role even in the very beginning of the game. :) Mallerd (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Progress is slow at WP:NOT, but it's there. There are a number of people who are now talking about middle ground, rather than pushing for one of the 50/50 options to win out. My advice is to distinguish the consensus builders from those who are simply trying to score points in a debate with no judges. You'll be able to tell the consensus builders because they'll admit there's no consensus to outright remove the policy, but they'll also be supportive (or at least accepting) of a re-write or move. You'll be able to recognize the debate club if they're still trying to argue about whether to keep it at all.
Don't take the WP:Bait. If you see a comment from someone who is trying to stonewall or filibuster the discussion -- inclusionist or deletionist -- try to ignore it. If you absolutely can't, my advice is to keep your reply to one line or less, explaining that you don't think their viewpoint has consensus, and/or advising them to focus on something that does.
Focus on editors who show at least *some* open-mindedness, or else discussions will get dragged towards no consensus. (Reply back here.) Randomran (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.
If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
GAR
I was thinking about reviewing the TV ep GAs, and saw that you already have.
I think you should delist Dick in a Box, it's needs quite a bit of work to be a GA.
I removed the offending image from Kamp Krusty. The article is still weak, with a small lead and reception sections, but maybe just barely passes the GA requirements. Up to you. If you drop the Simpsons project a note, they'd probably fix those two issues a matter of days if you don't feel it's up to snuff.
I have updated the project page to reflect the announcement and accompanying change.[8] Please also note that there is an open discussion about the possibility of an arbitrator becoming a moderator or taking another role in the effort: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Invitation to discussion. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact myself or the Committee mailing list. --Vassyana (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Removal of vocalist information I added to Guitar Hero page
I noticed that you reverted my edit adding info about Moorea Dickason, who is one of the Guitar Hero vocalists. I'd eventually like to see sections that credit the musicians, much like any musical recording. (1) people may not realize those are not the original recordings but rather are being covered by other musicians, and (2) Moorea's link that I referenced is esp. interesting since it talks about the process of learning a rendition by a particular artist. I don't know Moorea personally. Do you feel crediting the studio musicians would also be inappropriate on the pages for the specific versions a person recorded on (e.g. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock)? -- Vaarky (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I notice you reverted a recent edit I made to the PixelJunk article. The way the article was laid out, it was almost a surrogate article simply summarizing each game. In the case of Shooter, a few very specific details about narrative, music, and a naming contest were there which I've now moved more appropriately to the game's main article. I've also cut the bulk of the game summarizations and added a table and a "history" section. I'm hoping this opens up the article to be more about the development of the series in general and less of a stopgap between the name "PixelJunk" and the specifics of each game. Just a heads up so you know where I'm coming from. T. H. McAllister (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to point out that your "restore" reverted the various cleanup I made to article, which was unrelated to "venue" and "history of song ownership" as you mentioned in the edit description. I assume this was an error and have corrected it. just64helpin (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Beatles Rock Band Edits
Hi there, noticed you took out some things I added and wanted to talk about them here. Hope this finds you well.
RE: venues are premature (RB rarely ties a song to a venue)
Harmonix press release: "the game represents the first time fans will be able to experience The Beatles’ musical career for themselves. From the early touring days in 1963 Liverpool to the immortal, final performance on the Apple Corps rooftop, fans can follow in the band’s footsteps as they traverse the globe during the height of Beatlemania." And "The Beatles: Rock Band story mode will take fans on an interactive, experiential journey through The Beatles career. Along the way, venues, set lists, clothing and instruments will replicate the band’s rise to fame, represented in The Beatles' touring period from 1963 to 1966 and their studio days from 1966 to 1969."
These passages indicate that the game will be a historically accurate journey through the history of The Beatles, as the ten songs shown in the preview video have also corroborated in regards to having historical accurate venues with their corresponding set lists (as in all songs -were- played at those specific concerts or venue in the case of the cavern). If you like, maybe 'Tier' would be more compatible regarding previous rock band titles and the concept of a linear campaign mode. Also you deleted the years column, which seems beyond the scope of your reasoning for editing.
RE: and history of song ownership is beyond scope of article
Song ownership was being discussed, not history of song ownership, song ownership is relevant as certain well loved Beatles songs will not be available for inclusion in the Soundtrack due to who currently owns them. If the one sentence regarding the history song ownership, which was concerning why Penny Lane was not owned by Sony/ATV (which in my opinion, is pretty inscrutable without a specific explanation), maybe you should've deleted just that one?
You've reverted my additions to the song table with the edit description "Let's wait until the game's out to see how HMX catalogs these."
1) Why? What Wikipedia guideline states that we should mimic the in-game catalogue fields?
2) As it is now with only the song titles, there's absolutely no point in having a sortable table. You can either read it alphabetically backwards or forwards. If you'd rather not include information about the albums or release years, then it'd make more sense to get rid of the table entirely and simply list them with bullets. There's no sense in leaving it as a placeholder until September.
T. H. McAllister (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That point you gave was very true, just because the first trailer shows all of these songs doesn't mean that it's all finalized yet. As a Beatles fan though, I am impressed that none of the songs are covers. Hello by the way, my name is Zeke. I have noticed your tireless edits on many VG articals and I couldn't help but say hello. My x-fire is marioman2971 if you'd ever like to talk. I'm usually only on during the weekends though. Cheerio!--Ezekiel 7:19S†rawberry Fields (sign)00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. HidingT10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Has per your revert. "It is a guide, not a set of rules. In this game, it is easier to explain the game after describing the plot.". Why makes it different from any other games out there?. Can you explain?. I don't see any much differences between a guide or rules. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
An amendment request has been filed that directly impacts the Ireland collaboration project. There are currently two open motions involving centralizing discussion and permitting moderators to topic ban disruptive participants. Your input and comments would be greatly appeciated. I apologize that you were not notified previously of this request. --Vassyana (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't suppose you know of potentially useful sources for...
... Escape from Monkey Island? I thought I'd have a go at redoing this article in sandbox, and t'was wondering if perhaps you might know of any potentially useful sources. You did the work on Grim Fandango's article; as the two games are very closely related technologically you might have come across something useful during the Fandango work, though granted that was quite a bit of time ago. Most of the article should be constructable using online sources (the only LucasArts adventure game young enough to be able to, though I doubt the same level of development information is available for EMI), but if you happen to know of any potentially useful online or print sources, please do send them my way. -- Sabre (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits to The Beatles: Rock Band
Hi. I removed external WP:SPAM links to this article. (I confess I only checked two of four.) Of those, one sent my Firefox browser into an apparently infinite loop of pop-ups. The focus of the other seemed to be a way for GameStop to publish a link in Wiki.
Another factor that suggested the links were spam is that both statements had two references each. Generally one link suffices. Links to popular articles such as this are targets for marketing departments. Two links suggests that one, at least, is redundant spam.
The "nation" of Ireland and such variants are as "ambiguous" as Ireland itself. The Republic of Ireland is a sovereign state, and the island of Ireland is not a state, but both are nations in different ways; likewise, both are countries and called such in everyday language. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Brutal Legend Front Cover
Hi, don't really know where to post it so heres the link i got the cover from
Orphaned non-free media (File:Wallace gromit grand adventures screen.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Wallace gromit grand adventures screen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Beatlesguitars.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Beatlesguitars.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Remedies
Masem could you clarify for me the current position on the discussion. Under the title “Findings of fact” in the section titled “Locus and state of dispute” that ArbCom have outlined the nature of the dispute between the parties being:
the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland
the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these
disagreements concerning recent page moves relating to these articles
whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves
the extent to which the current article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view.
That the members of the Community, were asked in “Remedies #1” to:
obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.
and
develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue
That this process failed with the Community unable to reach agreement or develop a procedure, and therefore under “Remedies #2” that you the three uninvolved administrators were asked to:
develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.
Accepting that the original three uninvolved administrators resigned, would I be right in saying that the current three uninvolved administrators are still acting under “Remedies #2”, and that it is the three uninvolved administrators who must develop and supervise an appropriate procedure and not the Community. The Community having been provided the opportunity by ArbCom to do this failed.
Hi Masem, thanks for your reply on my talk page. It was my understanding that Remedies #1 had failed. I outlined a breif history here, on the Collaboration and the uninvolved administrator clearly indicated that Remedies #1 had failed. That uninvolved administrators were appointed is also the clearest indication that this is the case. Could you possibly clarify this with ArbCom. If it is the case that the uninvolved administrators are simply looking for proposels from the Community and will then decide on which one they prefare that would indeed be an alternative approch. In my proposel should I address the issues raised by ArbCom in the section titled “Locus and state of dispute”, and should all proposels include the Final decision by ArbCom in the section titled Principles. Thanks again for reply --Domer48'fenian'14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Guitar hero topic supp nom
Hi. i wanted to close the current guitar hero nom, as it is pretty old, but wanted your opinion. AFAIK, the peer review retention period has passed for the Smash hits article too. Would you think it best to promote the metalica/On Tour addition now, only to put the whole thing for removal per 3c - or just close with no changes and give a few weeks grace before either adding all 3 or delisting? It would seem needlessly complicated to do the whole updating if we have to delist or update again asap.YobMod19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Masem- The next issue of the VG newsletter is coming out soon and we're going to use a new format that will include an interview for a "Featured editor" segment. Interested in being interviewed? To give you an idea, here's an example David did earlier this year. (Guyinblack25talk14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
I've reviewed the article and placed it on hold. I've still to finish checking all the sourcing but I think it will be fine. In the meantime there's some minor issues to take care of. bridies (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
could you help out the guitar hero wiki. it could use more information
NTC TNT (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
ps. if you could update the page List of Guitar Hero Characters i would be gratful. its mainly just me. i upadate with characters that i have unlocked or see onhere. please please please help out there.
Thanks for the improvements! I don't know how I missed those sources, especially the Rolling Stone one, but I'm glad to see the article is well supported now. --TexasDex★18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
STV poll
Hi Masem, if STV poll is going to go ahead then can I ask if you had a look at Fmph's suggestions for the details of how it should be conducted. I posted them to the IECOLL talk page with some suggested changes from me. Also, as you mentioned before a result of 50%+1 is not very conducive to restoring consensus (although I suspect an actual result would not be that). Have you given any thought to setting a higher quota for a binding result e.g. min. 65% (although I think the software for calculating the result that Fmph suggested is capable of this). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Special Sections
These Special Sections are a sections that have a special name (No Chours, Intro, Verses etc.) A special name is (Example. Jungle Breakdown or Mosh 1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.170.63 (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Left for Dead 2
There should be less changes to that article now that EA has corrected the "mistake"
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
non-free content
I am asking you because you are an administrator and seem to know policy.
Is this illegal use of non-free pictures? See Farrah Fawcett Not all 10 criteria are met. I have a photo of a celebrity (not Farrah) so celebrity photos for free use do exist.
This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots
- for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents
This condition doesn't appear to be met.
I prefer that WP be "The Free Encyclopedia" and not "The Nerdy Schoolboy's Depository of Stolen Images and Plagiarism".
I don't quite understand. Does that mean that if someone is dead, we can copy any picture we want by calling it non-free use? Doesn't seem right to me. Surely there are thousands of fans who took photos. Maybe none of them gave them to WP, but they do exist. I know because I've taken photos of celebrities.
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Three questions...
Hi Masem,
Just three (and half) quick questions:
Has ArbCom given their blessing to a *vote*?
Have ArbCom singed off on a 12-month block (as is currently stated in the draft ballot page) for sock puppetry?
What is the date for the ballot now?
Last question, I don't think you can answer (but maybe you can), I think consensus was for instant-runoff voting to be the exact method to decide the winner (regardless of 50%+1 etc.). Can you get confirmation of this on the IE:COLL talk page, just in case of the off chance of there being a dispute after the poll gets closed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not a change, just a confirmation of the details because it was never fully agreed what would happen (on the off chance) if the "winner" didn't get 50%+1 (by IRV, the option with the most votes would win). I'll post a message on IE:COLL just to confirm. Masem, can you confirm the questions regarding ArbCom. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand it. (It's the maths.) Why can't we just use the same method we used for the last poll? Just run it through your machine and see what comes out. Where were we talking about 50%+1? Are you saying a majority isn't enough? Or there could be a tie or something? -- Evertype·✆08:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to understand it. What RA wants is confirmation before the poll of what method will be used to count it once the poll has closed. It is a very sensible precaution. I used IRV for my tally, and I think RA used it for his, but neither of us had any guidance on which to do. We just did it. Doing that again in the substantive poll may lead to complications and arguments after the fact. Let's just get clarification, to be sure, to be sure. Fmph (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Understanding is always welcome. My point is... let's not do anything we didn't do before. If this is just naming what we did before, that's certainly no problem. -- Evertype·✆09:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, we're at a pretty stable place now with the ballot. I think we are close to running the final vote. There are a few admin types things that would be cool if you could do them:
First could you fully edit protect the ballot form template (Template:Stv-ballot) so that it cannot be vandalised to manipulate the vote?
Second, I have moved the draft voting page to a "real-life" location. I have broken the intro/ballot/instructions part of that out onto a sub-page that is being transcluded into the voting page. Just before the ballot opens, could you please fully edit protect that page so that everyone see a final stable version throughout the vote (and no editing takes place on it during the vote).
The pp-protect template is interfering with the ballot template. Can you edit the first pp-protected template appears within the <noinclude> tag and remove the line break immediately after it? i.e.:
<noinclude>{{pp-protected|reason=Protecting voting template to be used in Ireland Naming poll to prevent voting disruption}}</noinclude><includeonly><span style="bor...
And once you start the poll, sit back, put your feet up and have one of these. Full of iron, my granny used to say. You'll need it.Have one on meFmph (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yum. I'm seeing a fair bit of consensus on the Project Talk page. We're finalizing the announcement text now. I'm prepared to send that text out to all the people and boards we have listed if you approve that, Masem. Unless you should do it (it's tedious). -- Evertype·✆18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's doubtful you'd ever find an Irishman drinking canned Guinness. I bet that can was filled in Chicago or Lagos! Fmph (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Page protection for Ballot page
It's coming up to the time and we've just got agreement on what should be the last piece of the ballot page. It's down to splitting hairs now, so could you please full edit protect the page so we can go to bed with confidence that we will wake up to an agreed version for the vote tomorrow morning?
p.s. when you do can you wrap the pp-protected template in <noinclude> tags (since that page is being treated as a template for the main balloting page). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, bed would be nice. And please set a time for the poll to start. 12:00 UTC, 18:00 UTC, or 21:00 UTC will be fine. I will edit the ballot one last time to push the closing date back one so it yields 21 days. -- Evertype·✆22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, I'm sorry, but would you please revert the changes Tfz made to the Ballot paper before you protected it? We had agreed to leave that text off. -- Evertype·✆23:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Date for poll
Could you announce a date for the poll? I think Evertype is expecting it to happen tonight. If it's not then I think it would be better to tell him now rather than have him hover around his computer all night. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidently not tonight? It is 23:00 here now. I'll be up past midnight and can stay up later, but right now we have some fierce resistance on the info text. -- Evertype·✆22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you set us a time for the poll to start tomorrow?. 12:00 UTC, 18:00 UTC, or 21:00 UTC will be fine. (not sure what time zone you are in) -- Evertype·✆23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, can you please give an indication of what you are going to do about scheduling this? I've done my best to help, but I would like to know how much longer I am going to have to refresh my watchlist? Are we talking hours? Days? -- Evertype·✆20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Request for an edit on a protected page
Can you please review this section at the Poll on Ireland article names talk page, in particular my post here. Both Evertype and Rannpháirtí have been fastidious about not letting users add things to the ballot page willy-nilly, yet they added this link to a poorly-written, POV article with only hours to go and without any attempt at discussion on the main Collaboration talk page. As far as I'm concerned, that is not a part of the stable version agreed earlier today, and I have notified them here that I am asking you to revert it. I am hereby asking you. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Rannṗáirtí proposed to add the link to that article. I have assumed that the article was reasonably written as similar terminology articles are. I have no attachment to the paragraph "(For more information see Names of the Irish state.)" being on the ballot. You may wish to see what Snowded and Rannṗáirtí think. -- Evertype·✆23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've copied this from the WP:IECOLL talk page because it is too important for you to miss:
Masem/ras52, the method for counting votes is being discussed above. Masem, ras52 has pointed out some very good reasons not to reject a solution if it does not reach 50%. Please let's keep discussion all in one place. The *exact* method to be used is *very* important. If we are not agreed to it then there is no point in beginning the vote. The consequence of running a vote for three weeks and then realsing that we are not agreed on how to calculate the result is too great to even consider riskiong.
Masem, I would not object to a new one-line paragraph to be added above the "See also" in the info box that states "The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly." -- this was requested on the Ballot's talk page. -- Evertype·✆17:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ireland Collaboration Process
Masem could you tell me who the other mediators are in this process as it appears you are the only one and I thought (correct me if I am wrong) but arbcom said that 3 were needed. BigDuncTalk18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the compromise about comments in the balloting area was agreed to. That compromise was to update the balloting template to allow for a uniform phrase that could link to a user's subpage where they could have their rationale.
Thanks for uploading File:Braid-dk.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I will be going away for a few days. So, can you lock my my POV statement against changes by others in case the poll kicks off before I am back. Also, please add what ever health warnings are agreed to, etc.
I have intended the statements as a general statment, but it could also be listed as a statement against Option E (to disambiguate) or, vaguely, pro C, D and F.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Masem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Template:In-universe rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Infamouslogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
— 16 March 2009
: 23 March 2009
Previous issue | Next issue 
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[9]](http://5thcell.com/post217.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Resolved
){kind=link}