Jump to content

User talk:Masem/Archive 9

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

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For the reversions of vandalism. Keep it up. Namtar 17:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thank you so much for explaining things to me. Wikipedia can be very frustrating at times but it is a much better place because of people like you who are willing to explain things. City boy77 (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look?

[edit]

I would appreciate your comment at Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline#Expand the guideline. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

Thank you for your constructive criticism

[edit]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. When I placed the {{Plot|date=September 2011}} template in the article sections, they were immediately removed by other editors, even in the article Treehouse of Horror VIII, which is longer than 900 word and has multiple subsections, obviously against the spirit of what plot summaries should be per Wikipedia policy. Perhaps the actions of editors that automatically remove appropriate tags should also be investigated. Finally, I think the name-calling exhibited by Viriditas on the notice board to administrators is more offensive than my good-faith edits and a few errors. Thanks again for your corrections and friendly approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs)

I'm spotting the plot template additions and I don't see them being removed unless either they have taken steps to correct the plot (The Otto Show) or it was part and parcel of reverting the removal of the GA status; certainly the plot tag remains on ToH VIII as I write this. Yes, if you've tagged the plot section in good faith (that it is oversized), the tag shouldn't be removed unless it is corrected. But again, that's an "easy" fix once its identified, and no reason to remove its GA status. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

[edit]

Good article section in Discussion pages in articles should be revised

[edit]

The Good article section in Discussion pages in articles should be revised, it states directly that good articles that don't meet criterion can be delisted as such. This should therefore be corrected. It is never by intention to ever be disruptive or counterproductive. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

I can understand your concerns considering the EqD page, although the real concern should be about the article on that Fighting is Magic which I don't know how the hell it got past notability issues. It was more of an effort to get the operator off my dick ever since I got FiM to GA status. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 02:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

This guy is a champ

[edit]

i love you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.3.15 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection

[edit]

I saw your work on The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection – it looks great! I noticed the article meets the criteria for a WP:DYK and was wondering if you'd mind if I nominate it for one. Please let me know, thanks. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAR19

[edit]

Intoronto1125 has been edit warring, but that does not mean that we cannot officially form a consensus against his proposed change.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nsport - clubs and teams

[edit]

Hi, did you see my post at [1]. I believe you were quite active when this guideline got off the ground and wondered if you could help to answer it. Please post there. Thanks. 08:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Girl Who Waited pic

[edit]

The shot there is actually during that part when they're talking through the glass. I know it's not obvious, but I couldn't find a better shot that could show the contrast between the two Amys. I'm open to something more distinct, but I don't have access to iPlayer to grab a screenshot. Glimmer721 talk 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glimmer721 talk 23:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've uploaded that, do you think the disputed fair-use rationale notice is not appropriate as it refers to the olf one? Glimmer721 talk 01:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

Page User:Hammersoft

[edit]

That was cute. Anyway, of interest; this user appears to be running a parallel account? User:Cinema City Romania. Not wrong, per se, but maybe worth a look. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lego-david-bowie.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lego-david-bowie.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 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. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your edit summary on MLP:FIM

[edit]

I am having difficulties understanding the sentence that I got rid of in the context of your edit summary.

"Reasons for this unusual appreciation include a combination of Faust's direction and characterization, [etc]"

I am unsure whether this sentence is referring specifically to the fact that Lauren Faust did the show, or the direction and characterization of the show, of which Faust happened to be a part. In other words, is the sentence saying:

"Reasons include ... Faust's contribution to the show"

or

"Reasons include ... The general direction and characterization of the show, which Lauren Faust helped develop"

If the sentence is intended to mean the latter, I think that adding Lauren Faust's name is irrelevant and only causes confusion. If the sentence is the former, the phrase 'direction and characterization' is confusing and I suggest revising it to the example sentence I provided.Enigmocracy (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rhythm game

[edit]

User: JimmyBlackwing has copy edited rhythm game for the purposes of an FAC attempt. Just wondering whether you wouldn't be interested in nominating it. More than half the content must be yours, so you're welcome to a shot at the credit, such as it is... Otherwise, I'll give it a try in few days. Thanks. bridies (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There might more needed on the present stuff which I haven't gotten around to adding. Things like DC being the best selling kinect title, mobile applications like Tap-Tap Revolution, etc. I would wonder if at FAC they would consider the fact this is ongoing as a problem in terms of stability. At least to me, a big question mark that I would rather see answered personally before FAC is what is going to happen to Guitar Hero, whether there's closure or not. That said, please don't consider that stopping you from taking it there. It probably will be ok but I'm sure someone will pick up on that. I'll help with any corrections needed of course, and if you want to consider it a co-nomination... --MASEM (t) 13:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an issue, but if it does come up the defence will basically be WP:CRYSTAL. I'd be more concerned with completeness and keeping it up to date with the recent things you mentioned. In any case, JimmyBlackwing has made the effort to copy edit it so I will give it a go regardless. And yeah, an informal joint nom sounds good. So I guess there's still some finishing up to be done on the content, I'll see what I can do shortly. bridies (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the last sentence does mention Dance Central being the "top-selling game for the Kinect", although that's just Nov 2010. What would we need on Tap Tap? The only interesting claim I can see on our current articles is Tap Tap Revenge 2' Already Top iPhone App, 500,000 Downloads. It's hitting me that I've really not been following new games in general for a couple of years and am pretty clueless about this part of the material. Still, hopefully I can chase down info on any given hints... The only other things I'm becoming apprehensive about are firstly the possible lopsidedness in detail between 2009-10 and everything else. Although mulling it over a lot of it seems to directly involve Guitar Hero/Rock Band and perhaps a deservedly hefty 2005-2010 section on the Western franchises is what we should be looking at. The other thing being whether the Japanese section is given enough weight. I'm leaning towards yes, just not totally sure: it seems to breeze through a little compared to those blow-by-blow sales figures found later on. On the other hand, I think even the less detailed sections are at least as good as 4X and maybe something like the history section of SNES. There doesn't seem to be a lot of directly comparable featured content to gauge against, hmm. bridies (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at this: [2], its a freely downloadable book that just came out and actually got a bit of press. The one thing that I get a sense of just by looking at the various sources is that regardless of how the article is structures, the era of plastic instrument music games needs to be highlighted as its own piece - whether as we have it now or differently. And I do agree that maybe more on the Japanese early music games would possibly help. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. One would cite this as an SPS by a recognised expert, right? I'm already seeing some useful stuff that might not be found anywhere else, not least the intro by Alex Rigopulos. I think the best solution to the structural problem is indeed probably a 2005/6-2010 section, perhaps split into 2 subsections (the 2006-2008 "spectacular expansion" and the 2008-2010 "spectacular contraction" as Rigopulos puts it, respectively). Maybe I'll float that on the talk page later. Aside from bulking out the Japanese section, perhaps a tweak in presentation so it's less an "origins"/"early history" piece; I think the Japanese market is smaller in relation to Guitar Hero etc, obviously, but not exactly niche from a global perspective and with at least as long a history. Anyway, I've got this book to plough through... bridies (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at FAC. I took the liberty of adding your name to the nomination, I think it's all legit... feel free to add or edit anything. I ended up only making a few minor additions before nominating, we'll see what happens. bridies (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

That GI review

[edit]

I've tried to find it for quite a while but to no avail, and webarchives aren't helping. Unless it is found, would it not be better to remove the dead link to re-add it if and when the review is located? I'm kinda new at this, so maybe there's some policy in place or something. I'm just trying to do some cleanup of articles in Book:Mario_titles, removing dead links, correcting redirects & duplicates, adding sources where I can. Lemme know. :) Salvidrim (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the GI review here: http://www.gameinformer.com/mag/reviewarchive.aspx , however it requires the reader to search for it and cannot be directly linked. Should I link to that ref or do a citemag? Salvidrim (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in the printed mag, so just source the mag, no URL (an online version is not required for including a reference). --MASEM (t) 23:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, was just wondering, since people who don't have the mag can still see it online. For instance I've never had a subscription, so wouldn't be able to read it if it wasn't for that archive... ;) But meh, I'll turn it into a citemag ref tonight. Salvidrim (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, though I'm unsure if all the information (namely the ISBN) I put in the ref is absolutely needed. Salvidrim (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

[edit]

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback misuse

[edit]

I'm hoping this was an error? It certainly wasn't vandalism.. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental misclick that I didn't even realize registered. Undid the revision. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, been there done that, just checking all was ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Here Nor There (Fringe)

[edit]

Thanks for your work on the above article. I'm not sure if I wasn't paying close enough attention during last season's finale, but I don't remember...

spoiler content

...the 'machine room' being so intricate - all those interlocks and stuff to get to it, etc. In the article, when it says they "take the module to the Machine room" - it kindof pops out and makes you say 'eh?'. Maybe it should be explained a bit more there... Perhaps we have missed something where all that containment was built up around it - but only a week has passed?

Cheers... –xenotalk 19:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to rewatch, I don't recall the "week" in there. Arguably - I would assume that the parallel world already had their containment up due to Walternate's security, while on the prime universe, without Peter in the alt timeline, maybe they had put the machine already at Liberty Island and thus that "materialized" into existence with Peter's bridge, and only adding more secure measures post-haste. Maybe Peter willed that stuff into being (why would the airlock be needed for example? ) Lots of questions, no answers yet. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that's possible. I just thought I would let you know that the plot description is a little jarring there, even for a die-hard like me. Keep up the good work! –xenotalk 19:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


Orphaned non-free image File:Bioshock-hack.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bioshock-hack.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 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture v. the hoity-toity in VPP

[edit]

I agree with you, but I am rejecting the underlying assumptions in the way that SmashTheState has framed this problem and these proposals. patsw (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tar-7-roadblock.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tar-7-roadblock.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 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. Skier Dude (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tar-s1-ff.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tar-s1-ff.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 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. Skier Dude (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery

[edit]

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 22:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that its in the tens of views per day, and not hundreds, I suspects its more in the noise than anything else. A google search for links to the Portal page shows no hits other than Wikipedia ones, so doubtful an outside source referenced it. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2011, the project has:

Content

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Pink Oboe and non-free images

[edit]

Despite the pleasant interactions on my talk page, User:The Pink Oboe continues to restore non-free content to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Seeking your assistance; this is now an edit war, and I want to avoid that. I'm absolutely within policy to revert him of course, but it isn't working anyway. A stern warning, if not for the blatant personal attacks, is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

[edit]

Hello, I know you raised the Continuity section issue on the talk page of WP:WHO before and I came for some advice before I start chopping (this way I have a discussion to hark back to if the revisions are reverted). The article of "The Doctor's Wife" is fairly good, but it's main issue is the continuity section, which is about as long as the plot synopsis itself. What do you think should stay and has reliable references (though citing the actual episode something occured is okay if it's really major), and what should just be deleted? I'm not sure about the first paragraph and how I could find that information or whether that really matters. Also, is it really worth mentioning that the Ninth and Tenth TARDIS's control room is used when it's already in the plot and production sections? And isn't Rory's 2,000 year thing just an inference that it relates back to "The Big Bang"?

Overall, I would just keep the jettisoning TARDIS room thing as it relates to Castrovalva (with a reference), maybe the cube thing if I can find a reference, "madman with a box" (think I saw a review mention that somewhere), perhaps the "Ood I failed to save" and then absolutely "the only water in the forest is the river", as that relates to the series arc and I am going to easily find a reference to it right now. What do you think?

Thanks, Glimmer721 talk 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I had mentioned in that continuity thing, anything that a reliable third-party (non-BBC source) has observed about the continuity of the episode should be reasonable fair game as long as they are getting at large, broad points and not nit-picking. I'm also a sucker for anything that connects the old and new series, so the stuff about the TARDIS choosing the Doctor is rather important - but again, if you can find sourcing, all the better. Things like the tattoo, for example, become extraneous, though I would consider the Corsair changing genders on regen to be important. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Once upon a monster logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Once upon a monster logo.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 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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

10c proposal

[edit]

I would appreciate your input at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 41#10c violations. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tag for WP:NFCC

[edit]

I think you have it wrong. This is being used in a few articles.Gregory Heffley (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free rationale must include several parts, many which the Wimpy Kid image is missing. It is furthermore using a rationale that states "to use" which drastically fails to explain why the non-free image should be used in the first place. Furthermore, there's only one non-free image - if it is being used anywhere else, each use needs a separate non-free image to be complete. Thus, this is a very poor rationale and thus disputed. I believe there may be a proper use for this image, but that rationale needs to meet all 10 points of NFCC for each use. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Masem/Archive 9! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

[[File:Wimpy Kid.jpg]]

[edit]

I want to know why you tagged thisGreg Heffley 18:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through our Non-free content policy and guidelines for non-free image use. There are several problems with the rationale that fail to meet these requirements, most specifically the "Purpose of use" rationale that is to show how this image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC#8. "To use" is not an acceptable rationale for any image; we have to show why the reader's understanding would be improved by including the image and what they would lose out without seeing that image. The other parts of the rationale, such as the portion used and the resolution, should also be filled out.
In addition, the image is being used on two pages but there's only a rationale for one page. The image on Greg Heffley is not given a rationale and thus its use there is improper. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who images

[edit]

But it does though. Please let me continue putting images up, because it gives more information about the episode and really describes it. In fact every episode up to The End of Time does have a screenshot. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, alright. I will get key points. If I don't, leave me a message and I will stop immediantly. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

Stubs

[edit]

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Thiessen

[edit]

Any citations for him being executive producer of FiM? –IsaacAA (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of arbitration case

[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 13, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going First time Ive seen someone break a RfArb page like that. :) ΔT The only constant 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
colon verses vertbar makes a big diff... --MASEM (t) 16:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

Questions to the parties on the Betacommand 3 arbitration case

[edit]

Drafting arbitrator User:Kirill Lokshin has posted some questions to the parties. As you are either an involved party or have presented evidence in this case, your input is sollicited. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've self reverted my addition of reply headings (taking yours out in the process) whilst I clarify something with Kirill. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom

[edit]

Hi Masem, just letting you know I've co-nominated me and you at DYK for the article And Those We've Left Behind. You can find the nomination page here. Let me know if this is an issue. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 06:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

Template: Video game requirements

[edit]

I recently tried to add this template to one of the wikia I edit. But it requires a sub template (Template:VGrequirements/Sub) to work and it has been deleted here. Can you explain how to create this dead template? Thank you..--117.202.70.70 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it working, thank you for creating this template.. --117.202.70.70 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for And Those We've Left Behind

[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks Masem for helping to promote Potato Sack to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem? What problem?

[edit]

Hi Masem. I'm trying to see where we all stand with regard to what the problem is with image use. Would you mind summarising concisely for me what you think is the problem here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Semi-emergency request - bot to engage website archiving of links

[edit]

Regarding this request I have the infrastructure and tools available I just need the green light. ΔT The only constant 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wt:NOT

[edit]

just a suggestion, but given the abysmal heat-to-light ratio on that page you may need to set up a separate straw poll subsection with a banner instructing people to put discussion elsewhere, otherwise things are going to implode into petty squabbles the way they are currently imploding. There are too many people dead set on getting their way and hair-triggered about opposition.

Honestly, what I think the page needs is a good old fashioned fist fight - there's nothing quite as effective for burning off excess testosterone, establishing mutual respect, and clearing the head. But, alas… --Ludwigs2 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

[edit]

Alone, these aren't admin issues alone, but with the above cases noted above... looks like a sentence that I should have written. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

About the MLP character pages

[edit]

Hi, thanks for noting that these might get deleted. Granted, the only good sources for the characters is the show itself, and that can't be cited. I don't know... but I saw a ton of other cartoon characters with pages that have no sources whatsoever (like the Jimmy Neutron article, the individual Rugrats characters, etc.), so I assumed it would be safe.

Lots of pages on Wikipedia would fail the notability guideline if people actually paid attention to them and took action. - XX55XX (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently adding sources to these articles, but the only good ones come from the show itself. Granted, if character articles like this (Aang) can exist while using the show itself as the main sources, I don't see why, at minimum, the main six characters can be added. Supporting characters might not fly, you are right. - XX55XX (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concern noted. Outside of Hasbro's website, and the MLP community (both the toy community and the brony community), there are few outside references to the characters themselves. Perhaps if the show becomes more mainstream, more references to the characters will be made. But I have no doubt that someone might come around and request a deletion. But, it's a good thing that stuff gets archived, so that it can brought back when the time permits. - XX55XX (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. In My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Child's Play (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested

[edit]

Thanks for your thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#.22brief_verbatim_textual_excerpts.22_revisited/ I'm looking at Maria_von_Trapp, where the length of the quoted material in the footnotes rivals that in the main article. I think I know your druthers; it would be better to identify facts in the quotes belong to the article, and write them in one's own words, in the article. On that point we agree, assuming I understand your position.

However, I'm trying to determine whether it is a point of preferential style or stronger. Unlike the example I linked before, where I could improve it in a minute or two, cleaning this up it a chore (and one of more than 6000 items to review, many of which have similar issues.) RAN has been helpful when I've pointed out clear cut cases - obvious copy and paste requiring rewrite or very deficient referencing. On this article I think I am on weaker ground; while I think it could be improved materially, I don't know that RAN is obligated to write an article differently, simply because I like a different structure. Your thoughts would be most welcome.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit]

Muhammad images arbitration case

[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit]

2012 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of 2012 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: 2011 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sega-patent-6200138-image.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sega-patent-6200138-image.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Parameter in citations

[edit]

You contributed to a discussion either here or here. I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carny on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following your comments about quoting in these discussions. The issue has always concerned me since I like using quotes to tell other contributors that hey, I'm not making this stuff up; I didn't say it; the NY Times said it (or whatever media). For me, quotes are an important part of justifying my contributions. At the same time, I do not want to rip off reporters & editors who get paid to do this stuff (btw I don't get paid here at Wikipedia, and I assume the same is true for you as well?). So I was wondering if you might have a glance at Planned shrinkage. In the references, there are hidden quotes -- probably almost all users (readers, as well as fact checkers) will never come across the quotes which are buried in the "<!--- quote buried here --->" sections within the quote parameters. What do you think? While I am not an expert in copyright law, it seems sensible to me that hardly any publication (or its lawyers) could possibly object to such a practice, since the actual effect of such quoting is extremely minimal in the sense that hardly anybody will ever see the actual quote. But, at the same time, a fact checker who really wants to check the fact will have that quote there, buried in the material, for checking purposes. For me, it seems to solve both worlds -- verifying, and copyright protections. I'm curious what you think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hardly anyone will see it" is not a legal defense against copyright. It's present in the text, thus it techically falls under fair use considerations. I can't say if that's too much or not and thus illegal or not, just that, you can't say "it's hidden, therefore it can't be a problem". --MASEM (t) 00:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

[edit]

Seeking advice on where to take a potential issue editor

[edit]

Hey Masem, we bump into each other a bit on the video game articles. There's an editor going around that I believe is working against general consensus on how Plot sections of video games should be done. The user constantly tags plot sections with citation needed, including his own additions as he adds them. He breaks plots up into unconventional sections, tags them outright as needing rewrites (After making extensive edits), and populates them with excessive numbers of quotes from the games to act as citations. The quotes themselves possibly being OR. I've fought these edits (With talk page consensus) on a couple of articles but I see it's occurring in other articles that I don't watch, after reverting another one today that I do watch.

What's the best approach to attempt to address this? I've responded to the user directly a few times, including a warning about flagging all of their updates as "minor edits" when they change substantial sections of articles. I don't want to police the user's contributions everywhere, that doesn't feel right or in the spirit of Wiki. I'm also a big opponent to people dropping big tags like rewrite, which direct users to the talk page for more information, where the tagging editor did not leave any issues or suggestions. -- ferret (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all video game articles, probably best to take the issue to WT:VG, where I'm pretty sure consensus exists for the approach you're describing, and make sure to alert to the editor in question of the discussion; take it there as an issue "is this the right way to right plot sections" rather than "this editor is causing me problems". If he persists after that, that starts become a user behavior issue and dealt with at WP:RFC/U or if very disruptive, WP:AN. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot format is up, I'll see what others say before I try to push my view of it on any other articles. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HIB

[edit]

Hi Masem, I don't want you to think there was any bad blood between us. I have full faith that your edit was in good faith. What happened was when you made the edit a bit of the info disappeared (I believe it was about the soundtracks). This was, I'm sure a technical issue. I merely reverted the issue to save the vanished content. I always assumed that you would come back and fix it. Maybe I should of been more clear. 08:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2011

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2011, the project has:

Content

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dangling thought?

[edit]

Hey Masem, I think you have an incomplete thought at the end of this thread? Did you miss something or just forget to delete it? Here's the diff. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo reshoot

[edit]

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Round_2_of_reshoot for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

[edit]

Convergence

[edit]

Hi Masem - I think (and am glad) we managed to converge on a mutual understanding at WT:FAC before the surrounding furore resulted in a closedown. In any case, I welcome further discussion, and if you want my thoughts and/or support in taking your latest ideas forward, feel free to contact me at any time. I have also been substantially involved with WikiProject assessments in the past. Geometry guy 22:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, trust me, I had no disagreements, I was only trying to engage a thoughtful discussion and a possible idea. Given the vitriol at WT:FAC, I wasn't at all trying to start a heating, disjointed discussion.
As to the idea, it's basically to have WP take some responsibility in that once an article under their pervue meets GA, they should immediately evaluate it for A-class (which could also trigger a GAR if the passage was weak). There's a lot of mechanics to work out, and how much impedis there needs to be, and how articles in multiple projects interact, and all that, but using A-class as a target for quality in topical content, with GA as the metric for style/formatting/media/etc quality, gives a point that I think we can hope all articles on WP could ultimately reach, as a guide towards what our polices and guidelines should be doing. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you: our discussion was a candle of thoughtful light in a maelstrom of invective! However, I also value constructive disagreement, as you did at WT:GAN. I find the idealism and conviction at GA inspiring, even though I don't agree with the obsession with the backlog.
Your idea matches closely the first part of my response to your last post at WT:GAN. It was once the case that "A-Class plus GA" was assumed to mean "close to FA", but if it is unrealistic to make all such articles featured (and I think it is), then "A-Class plus GA" could well be the next best thing as a target for all articles. I also very much like your point that we should use our goals as feedback into discussion as to what policies and guidelines should be doing. Geometry guy 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Ride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

[edit]

Hi Masem,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Dream Focus

[edit]

I left a note on User talk:Dream Focus#Merge != Delete reminding this editor that merging isn't deleting and also reminding them to assume good faith but the initial response indicates that they are still looking at this from a very defensive position. Would you mind weighing in there as well? Maybe having 2 editors share their thoughts will help. If nothing else it will allow us to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct to get some other points of view. I'm a bit reluctant to go ahead with the merge as DreamFocus and Luciferwildcat seem unwilling to compromise.--RadioFan (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

[edit]

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos

[edit]

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia blackout

[edit]

Re your reversion, could this be handled by a note stating that the protest was on 17-18, 18 or 18-19 October depending on the local timezone, seeing that it ran 05:00 18/10 to 05:00 19/10 UTC? No need to reply, just make the necessary amendment if you agree. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, if this article is expanded to include the other blackouts, I would trim it down to the 18th , and note in the WP sction about the timing. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Q.U.B.E.

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Q.U.B.E. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Protests against SOPA and PIPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Hill and Lamar Smith
Enemy of My Enemy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The enemy of my enemy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

[edit]

Hi, there. Can you do me some favour, please?

JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 15:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the dubs, the question is how reliable is the source? I would consider this aspect trivial unless covered by a significant source and thus would drop it. We have a section on the use of MLP by the internet community in other less-ideal places so the hacking stuff could go there. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should give up on "The Ticket Master" one. But for the hacking incident one, I'm refering to those described in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#Other arenas. I think we can add more on that incident with articles I put in there. (And it's much reliable than an Equestria Daily scrap of now-disappeard article from Austrian newspaper's website.) But since I can't speak German at all, I really can't decide how to handle them. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 18:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TB

[edit]
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Death By Cube.
Message added 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Q.U.B.E.

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

[edit]

Arb case

[edit]

Thanks, Masem, you framed those issues better than I did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I've been watching the article title discussion for some time but found nothing to inject into it or to have the community react to, just a remnant of the larger problem brewing at MOS. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited BioShock Infinite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ken Levine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles and capitalisation case

[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 13, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

[edit]

Observations

[edit]

Masem, you do a lot of good work on here, but the VP thread is I think indicative of a recurring problem I've seen with you. It's not a consistent problem, but it has been a periodically recurring one. I had no problem with you proposing merger, just as I'm sure you had no problem with me disagreeing with it; the problem was with how tendentiously you carried on your side, and how you were justifying it on a subject that was easily volatile without really knowing what you were talking about, i.e., without understanding how reliable sources, aka the real world, frame the subject and issues. And you kept at it even when this was brought to your attention and offense was expressed, by posting wall after wall of text. You had already expressed your opinion; the best thing to do would have been to just drop it, maybe even apologize, but instead you dug yourself in deeper, as if you had to get the last word no matter what.

I think you can be too much of a policy wonk (contra WP:IAR, if nothing else), which can blind you to the content issues (or even just alternate interpretations of policy) presented by others. Whether because of this, or in addition to it, you also have a tendency sometimes to just repeat yourself in the face of persistent disagreement without advancing your argument or showing how you understand the other viewpoint, and you do it in a lot of words with every post. And in a manner that can seem like you're trying to lecture rather than truly respond. It's less likely to raise hackles in abstract policy discussions, but this was particularly a problem when you were dealing with a subject that obviously brings a lot of emotion with it to a lot of people, one that you admittedly were unfamiliar with, yet you still kept at itIn that context, ignorant statements, no matter how well intentioned, are almost unavoidably offensive. Now that was the first instance in which I have seen that particular problem from you, but I think it stems from the broader issue, that you can focus on your view of policy so much that you elevate compliance over other concerns, and your feeling of certainty and lecturing tone kept you from seeing that you were trying to school people on how to handle a subject that you just didn't understand. No doubt not everyone may agree with me on this, but you know I'm a prolific contributor here on a wide variety of subjects, not a POV warrior, and someone who has regularly participated in policy discussions, closed AFDs, and used his admin tools without any controversy. So I hope you'll take these observations seriously coming from me, take it to heart as constructive criticism, and reflect on how you can improve on these issues. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest, I didn't start with the intention of arguing it from a policy, short of the fact that the OP identified a POV issue with it. My core argument is on the best organization of information on WP, which is something that policy is very loose on (the closest things being WP:N, WP:SIZE, and WP:SS/WP:SPINOUT). Single articles covering several similar topics that may or may not be notable in a comparative fashion is better than having short or stub-like individual articles, while still allowing them to be searchable terms - but that's a point I argue without any policy to affirm or deny that approach, it's just a better practice for organization. As soon as any arguments that used policy to back it up, I can't run on this argument alone and have to point out that our policies generally point in this direction but never spell it out, and that protracts the conversation when others say "well, policy doesn't say that, therefore we don't have to do it." Add to the fact that it was a contentious topic, which is going to raise people's attitudes whenever even something close to "Delete" is mentioned, and they will fight tooth and nail, and alter the tone of the discussion. Yes, I'm wordy, and I had to repeat myself, but I felt my arguments were being twisted and/or were not clear.
I still think there is a better way that's a win-win for everyone including the articles themselves, but others seem to outright refuse any change for improvement. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe (TV series) taskforce proposal

[edit]

Hi there! As a frequent editor to Fringe articles, I thought I'd let you know I'm proposing a new taskforce for the series. If you're interested, you can find the proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fringe (TV series). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Principles/fof

[edit]

Looks good so far...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dustforce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Double jump
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to RPA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

[edit]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Volume I, Issue III
February 2012

To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page.
ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.


The Signpost: 06 February 2012

[edit]

Double Fine Adventure

[edit]

The game hasn't even begun development yet, so it's important to isolate all the (indeed very important) information about its financing, and the impact that's having from discussion of the game's development in order to keep the article organized and useful. Given the proposed "transparency" of the project, there will likely be a lot to say about the development, but none of the information in the article is development related. Discussing how the industry has reacted to this and all is important, but you can't call it "development" or it'll just be a blob of rambling text that no one can use. Frogacuda (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind splitting the text up - I recognize that. But remember that this is a video game article, and per usual organization, anything regarding announcements and funding should be part of that section. Taking it out of the "development" and having as h2 headers gives the impression that the "reception/reaction/response" section is about the game, which is , of course, not yet out. It just needs to be sectioned to keep it as development, but specific on the fundraising and a subsection on the response to that. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem right now with a lot of redundant information, which is organized more by the order in which it came to light than any logical construction, and there's also some silly irrelevant stuff in there about the cost of Xbox patches (it's not an Xbox game) that needs to be pared down to make this more compact, readable and useful. This is going to take a few edits, and I'm going to do them individually so the changes can be evaluated on their own merits, but please give me a few minutes before you decide if they need to go or not.Frogacuda (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not redundant information. Average readers (much less gamers) are not aware of game development costs, which this project has highlighted. The reason to give these numbers is so that people can understand the amounts of the Kickstarter for comparison. It may seem unrelated since it's not an XBLA game, but it actually is very closely related given all the interviewers that have brought this information up. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the part that was redundant. The way the whole thing was put together had a lot of unnecessary repeating of info because there wasn't any real organization. There was also a big problem with a lot of the info not really reflecting what was said in the sources, like implying that crowd-sourced games "require less money" or that the intitial goal was increased because he "believed in the fans". These sorts of articles about developing stories have to be reigned in and dashed a bit periodically in order to keep them readable. Take a look at it now, I think you'll agree it's easier to follow.
There might be a case for the relevance of the cost of XBLA patches (perhaps in noting the reason for the choice of platform(s), but that case was not made in text in which it was introduced in the article. It was a complete non-sequitur as it was before. If you want to reintroduce it you should find a way to make it important. Frogacuda (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Double Fine Adventure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Full Throttle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Double Fine Adventure at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Needing/Getting for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Needing/Getting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needing/Getting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Dustforce

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Dustforce at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BRMo (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

[edit]

DYK for Double Fine Happy Action Theater

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dustforce

[edit]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Double Fine Adventure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to PC World
My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Hub

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double Fine Adeventure DYK nomination

[edit]

DYK nomination of Double Fine Adventure

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Double Fine Adventure at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

[edit]

Fringe

[edit]

Thank you for not deleting my edit. So underrated these days. LiamNolan15212 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: just be aware that we do need to have things from reliable sources, even if you have inside information. One thing to do in the future is maybe to post what you know on a talk page, as that way you can get more eyes to see if that can be sourced better on such things, particularly if it is the fine-tuning of details rather than outright "wrong" stuff. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

[edit]

I was serious that your comment deservedly qualified to set upon no time. Raw truth like that is timeless. It's ironic that oops is attributed when in fact metaphysical power had warped the time continuum just enough to ensure your powerful prose self identified as timeless. It takes some good stuff to do all of that. My76Strat (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Needing/Getting

[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Guardian release date

[edit]

You are correct, I made an error when I said the quote was from Eurogamer. It is indeed from the Wired article. Here's the quote: At one point the progress was great, so we talked about the timing of the launch in the past. But now it’s making progress, but still not to the level — it’s playable, but not to the point that we can talk about the timing of launch. --Krevans (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Double Fine Adventure

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Live Free or Die Hard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United States Capital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

[edit]

Request for new article / notable enough?

[edit]

Hi Masem, seeking your advice and/or help. A college friend of mine recently released "Break Blocks" through his company "Greater Good Games", being published by Tripwire. Googling a bit, I see a Gamespot review and a few other hits that may work for notability. However I feel I have a conflict of interest here, as I'm looking into the topic because of talking to him.

Is there enough notability for an article? And if so, how could one get created in light of my own potential COI? -- ferret (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).
Message added 02:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Darkness II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron maiden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About my "unreliable" source on 2012 in RB DLC

[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my link to the Rock Band Aide article pointing out that Harmonix accidentally leaked the Three Days Grace DLC. Just to let you know: that is an 100% reliable source. Harmonix even sponsors Rock Band Aide, and they post all of their trailers for DLC on YouTube. And if you read the article (which I'm assuming you didn't), they even gave a LINK to the blog that they accidentally leaked containing the DLC (which they removed shortly after, but I managed to see it before it was removed) and they even posted the trailer of that DLC on that article.

Anyways, I know you probably didn't read the article so it's all good. Just note that for the future ;)

Percivl (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had seen the article and the blog post for a moment before it was pulled, but because it was pulled, it put the information in question. And while RBA may be sponsored by HMX, that doesn't make them a reliable source. Given that it was confirmed the next day, it's not a big problem here, but we do need to be careful on that source. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. I guess I understand.

So, on a side note, are you a fan of Rock Band yourself? I'm a huge fan; been playing since '09 and own all games. Percivl (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Television episode and season articles badly needed

[edit]

Because of the high number of edits that you have made at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, I would like to call your attention to a list of the most critically acclaimed episodes and season articles that need to be created: Wikipedia:TV-EPISODE#Important_articles_to_be_created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography

[edit]

I saw you reverted my edits but see no mention that articles about porn films and actor articles are permitted. The reason being WP:Censor is linked directly from Talk:Main Page and I wanted to calrify that its pointless moaning about topics like gay pornography being directly linked on the main page on Saturday afternoons as the "community" fullly supports it. What do you suggest we do then to prevent som other poor sucker for receiving just heavy-handed treatment at complaining about such topics being inappropriate for main page viewing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the second paragraph: However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content., it should be very obvious that pornography topics (films, actors, etc.) fall under "objectionable" materials that we do include as long as it is encyclopedia. There's no reason to call out pornography films as a special class outside of that. (There's plenty of other articles I'm sure people would want mentioned just like that if we include that special case). --MASEM (t) 20:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cover art

[edit]

I just got involved in a discussion regarding cover art fair use. I see you were heavily involved in such a discussion before, and saw you intended to make an RFC. Did that happen? What was the result? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One piece of non-free cover art is acceptable for a published work that is notable/has its own article in the infobox. The rationale for its use (one I don't necessary agree with but is the community consensus) is that cover art carries implicit marketing and branding information so the cover art itself does not need to be discussed in the article. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got here via a discussion regarding Template:Non-free_poster, do you think the wording of that template should change to conform with the consensus? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so, at least in the licensing template. The FUR should explain this in depth however. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FUR? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use (or non-free) Rationale, per WP:FUR. The license tag is necessary by itself, but the FUR goes into detail how NFCC is met; I can't remember if there's a FUR tag dedicated for movie posters, but if you're creating it from the generic templates, it should go into some detail how the poster is helping with marketing and branding, and a unique visual identifier for the movie in question. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC - request for input

[edit]

I have the impression that you are one of the more experienced editors regarding NFCC and as one of the people who provided evidence in the BCD Arb case you are probably aware of the drama and heat this topic can generate. Hammersoft and I wanted to conduct a community poll regarding the position of the community in relation to the NFCC. Please see User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi/Archive 3#Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Enforcement for the discussion leading to the decision to start a poll and User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Community poll regarding the NFCC situation for a rough draft of the poll page. If you have any feedback that would be much appreciated. If you are not interested, just let me know and that will be it.

Thank you. Regards. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment more later, but my initial read between the various places of discussion is that how it is worded now is opening the wrong can of worms towards drastically altering NFCC as opposed to determining if the policy is clear enough. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Counterpoint (Star Trek: Voyager), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vulcan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

[edit]

Shreds

[edit]

I wonder, did you read my edit summaries before reverting? Specifically, this one... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we already have established that the idea exists about shredding and its spread from the existing sentences. You're calling out one parody example without a source to acknowledge that it is a viral aspect itself (I do know what video you are talking about but I've never seen anything about it being viral); there's probably hundreds of shred videos but we can't feature them all, we can only feature the ones that are noted as phenom by sources. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you're still not noticing that you reverted EVERYTHING. As for Weird Al, do you really not see that his video is different? I mean... the "shreds" meme is all about fiddling with audio, and here comes the parody king himself, shredding paper on stage. How does that fit with the "hundreds of other shred videos"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bit that is there summarizes the meme satisfactorily with sources that describe how it is an Internet Phenomena. Now, as for the Weird Al one, yes, it's different, but is it "Internet Phenomena" different? No, at least, there are no sources to point to that. Of the three you added: KYM is not a reliable source at all (its user-submitted content), and the other two just relink to the video itself and provide no discussion of it - again unreliable. It's not like I don't know about the video, and I have looked for reliable sources that talk about that specific instance being viral, but can't find anything. "Shreds" videos in general all, but not the Weird Al version.
The thing to consider: for nearly *every* meme on the page, there is probably some example of the literal or alternative interpretation of the meme like the Weird Al video. We don't list all the variations of every single meme on this page, because its already long - we are using the list of internet phenomena page to quickly identify such phenomena and if they have a page on Wikipedia, point to that. Anything else is excessive. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KYM (as well as memecenter.com) are the ultimate indicators for a meme, since... well, memes are user-generated by definition. Technorati is a top search engine that – again – brings us to the existence of the meme. As for your last paragraph – please supply an example for a "variation" that differs as drastically as the Weird Al video differs from the meme itself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KYM is a user-generated content site, and per WP:SPS are generally not considered reliable; specifically for this page, since anyone can create a meme page on KYM, we can't use that site at all here. The other two "articles", even if they are normally reliable sources, are just reposting the video without any additional commentary. That fails to make them reliable, as we might as well just point to the youtube video in question. As for your last point, take "Friday", where we *could* talk about the Glee version, or the version on the Jimmy Fallon show, or a number of other "professional" variations on it, that go beyond the original "making fun of the video" meme. This page is not to cover every variation of every meme; we are summarizing what the memes are with sources that assert that they are Internet Phenomena. Just existing is not an acceptable inclusion metric for this page. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed my last question. Versions of the same meme are not the same as taking a meme and turning it on its essence.
  • The meme: take a music video and modify the audio.
  • Weird Al: brings a paper shredder on stage and videotapes it.
Are there any other ways I could show you the drastic difference between this example and any other example in the meme context you can think of? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are stating that Weird Al's literal take on the "shreds" concept is so important to contrast it against the hundreds of other "shreds" videos out there. That is a basic no-no of original research and would be WP:UNDUE - without sources to explain that. If there was an article from a reliable source that explained how Weird Al's version was a notable example of the shreds video in terms of being an Internet meme/phenomena, then there would likely be reason to include it. The mere existence of that video is not enough for inclusion without violating OR/UNDUE. There's a reason why there's a lot of other "obvious" memes aren't on this page, because mere existence is not the metric for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Think Tank (Star Trek: Voyager), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Masem. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rb track pack v1.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rb track pack v1.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2012

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2011, the project has:

Content

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3

[edit]

You commented at the first FAC, so as a courtesy, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Rock Band Blitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

[edit]

Letters of Transit DYK

[edit]

Hey, just letting you know I nominated "Letters of Transit" for DYK. You can find the page here. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

[edit]

Nomination for deletion of Template:TARDetour

[edit]

Template:TARDetour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Ryulong (竜龙) 08:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done the other related templates that seem to have never been used.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Prisoner in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Bishop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

[edit]

Thanks for the notification of this revert, by the way! I appreciate it. — foxj 07:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friday night death slot

[edit]
Friday night death slot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I appreciate what you have done to expand coverage about Fringe, but I have thoughts about Friday nights in general. Without enough research for general information about Friday nights, this article would be full of intricate examples again. --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Time article posted alludes to Fox's troubles with scheduling friday nights and why Fringe was exceptional counter-example. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
........ Let's discuss this topic in the talk page. --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFC question

[edit]

Hi. :) Somebody has asked me to weigh in on the application of NFC. This is not my area, so I need to find somebody who works there - and when I think of NFC, you are one of the first people I think of. Would you be willing to take a look at User talk:Drmies#G.I. Joe movie characters and offer some input? If not, please let me know, as I will need to find another expert to help out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC examples for editors?

[edit]

Hi, you mentioned they exist. I was calling for these to be developed years ago. I'd be delighted to see them, but can't see mention at WP:NFCC. Thx. Tony (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are at the guideline page that encapsulates the polcy of NFCC at WP:NFC at acceptable and unacceptable uses. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Masem. Will check them out. On another matter (I'm asking for an editor who's shy of enquiring but very sincere), who'd be willing to take the coaching of a wannabe admin who wants to specialise in copyright? It's not from scratch, either, I think. Tony (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking copyright in general and not just file-related copyright/non-free policy, my first thought would be User:Moonriddengirl but they might be too busy to immediately help out, but at worst they can probably point to someone less busy that knows the ins and outs of copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll suggest that. On the NFC examples, ah, they weren't quite what I was expecting. Better than what was provided years ago, but I'm thinking more of the tutorial-type specific examples that show editors by practice how identify the boundaries between acceptable and non-acceptable fair use claims. Not easy to organise, I know. Tony (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that part is hard because it does end up as a consensus-based decision, either at FFD or during FAC of an article. One article may use an image that everyone finds acceptable by NFCC, but in a similar article in the same field, using a similar image that otherwise meets all the same NFCC requirements, it may be taken as unnecessary. There are fixed lines we know shouldn't be crossed (what's outlined at those pages) but the grey space is huge. If anything, we do fall back to the advice that was in one of the signposts about 3 years ago about NFC ([3] here - in fact I'll be adding this to WP:NFC in a second here since that's all still valid advise. ) --MASEM (t) 16:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, it is already there, but still, that might be something you were thinking more in line with. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that SP article is good, but I'm thinking of just exercise after exercise (perhaps click-and-show, like my language tutorials). And is that the last we've heard in the SP about NFC et al? It could be due for an update later this year, do you think? I'm interested in contributing to the creation of a pilot tutorial for judging NFC claims in a range of contexts. I think there's a problem in finding unsupportable NFC images for such a tutorial, though. But quite a lot could be done. Seeing real decision-making exemplified might also attract admins and non-admins into the task. Tony (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be hard to do that if we used actual images though this may be a case that if the page is really tight and well-written as NFC advice, we could argue that this is a rare exceptional use of non-free in WP space. Alternatively, if we can use free imagery as say "Ok, pretend this is a non-free image, here how it fails...". Noting that the SP article is really the latest new thing on NFCC advice simply that NFCC hasn't changed since that point, and the same general attitudes on specific examples due remain (only a few changes of late for clarity), but there's no reason why something like that cannot be codified as WP:NFCTUT or the like. Perhaps specific examples pulled from FAC discussions could be used too, since these ultimate are the best place for arguing inclusion or exclusion after all other factors have been considered. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some exercises could simply probe a user's recall of the NFCCs (easiest), some can probe what kind of questions should be put to editors in terms of justifying their claims of FU (I've seen Black Kite do this at FAC with such professional smoothness and authority ... it was excellent, and really makes editors sit up and take notice; other exercises could present scenarios that are close to the edge of acceptability, so you could click on successive hints that each take you part of the way. Could deal with images, sounds, and even text, although the latter might require a separate set of tutorials. Tony (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's another approach that I happened on from an ANI thread: Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, which I believe was mostly written by Moonriddengirl; from an NFC approach, one could have similar "acceptable / unacceptable" blocks for certain types of examples after explaining all the rationale. There's a handful of ways we can go with it and feel that it would probably help in NFC handling. (And not to drag the point away too much, but these are the same type of page exercise that would be helpful for MOS/LINK to help describe the proper art of when and when not to link for certain explicit cases. There's probably a good # of policy/guideline pages that could benefit from these types of pages.) --MASEM (t) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MCQ#Adding Reuters photo of Aaron Spelling

[edit]

I disagree; every thread will be archived after seven days of the latest post. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

[edit]

DYK for Letters of Transit

[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fringe

[edit]

I did indeed! Great image you uploaded. BTW, I don't want you to think that I'm hogging all the Fringe episode articles. If you feel like bringing any by GA, please feel free to go ahead. I wouldn't want my large number of edits to the articles to seem like a deterrent to you or any other interested editors! Ruby 2010/2013 02:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) failed proposal or ongoing essay

[edit]

Hi Masem,

I'm suggesting that essayification of the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which you began on & December 2010, should be reverted to preserve the record of the failed proposal. If there is to be an essay, I think now that it should be started and developed as a separate page. You may like to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

The Furry fandom article doesn't have opinion articles saying that the fandom is "weird", neither does the otherkin article, or 4chan article, or any such fandom/community. The opinion sources are not RS content, nor do they contribute to any further knowledge about the my little pony fandom. They are opinions. I7laseral (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Seem To Have Someone On A Crusade

[edit]

IP.*.86 seems to be a on some sort of crusade with fiction guidelines. We have both reverted his edits at this point and he seems to be determined to edit war making massive changes without discussion. Ridernyc (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridernyc seems determined to editwar to revert back over a month of changes by multiple people. He's trolling my talk page as well. 86.** IP (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have only reverted your changes which you have never even attempted to get consensus for. You have made massive changes to guidelines, none of them with consensus. I'm not even mentioning the deletion debate you started. Ridernyc (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not reviewwed the edits

[edit]

The fair use section is IN the edits I reverted; it's just moved to a more logical position. Your 3RR reporting is malformed, contains a lie about something that wasn't a revert of anyone else, and shows you haven't actually looked at the diff in question. You clearly did not bother to actually review the diff you reverted, which does not show due diligence on your part, the 3RR report shows you did not even bother to review the edits in question, or you'd have noticed that I agreed with you, and left the Fair use section stand, due to your argument. It did move slightly, but that was due to me undoing my edit because of your argument at about the same time you did, and I think it got moved when I fixed that, but, really, I do think you need to undo your 3RR report, because reporting someone over false information is just wrong. . 86.** IP (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed, your edit adds a direct lie. The paragraph of the copyedited section reads:

Your edit, based on ridernyc's changes, inserts a falsehood:

Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible".

The Fair-use policy does not say that. The link's there, if you check, you'll see that quote does not appear anywhere in it. The revised version changes that to read:

Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, as such, we should limit the amount of detail to a reasonable level that informs the reader about the subject, while not going into excessive detail or attempting to substitute for the original work.

Which keeps the spirit - which is important - but does not lie by attributing a direct quote to policy which does not appear in it. 86.** IP (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is False accusations at Editwarring noticeboard. Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

[edit]

Template:Episode list

[edit]

When you edited the Template:Episode list, you did something to where the episode titles are no longer in bold. Can you fix this please? Jaxsonista (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the point is that they're not supposed to be in bold, see WP:MOSBOLD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Jaxsonista (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Limbo (video game)

[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Limbo (video game) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 10, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Limbo is a puzzle-platform video game and the premiere title of independent Danish game developer Playdead. The game was released in July 2010 as a platform exclusive title on Xbox Live Arcade, and was later ported to the PlayStation Network and Microsoft Windows via Steam. Limbo is a 2D sidescroller, incorporating the physics system Box2D to govern environmental objects and the player character. The player guides an unnamed boy through dangerous environments and traps as the boy searches for his sister. The developer built the game's puzzles expecting the player to fail before finding the correct solution. Playdead called the style of play "trial and death", and used visually gruesome imagery for the boy's deaths to steer the player from unworkable solutions. The game is presented primarily in monochromatic black-and-white tones, using lighting, film grain effects and minimal ambient sounds to create an eerie atmosphere often associated with the horror genre. Limbo received positive reviews, but its minimal story polarised critics. A common point of criticism from reviewers was that the high cost of the game relative to its short length might deter players from purchasing the title. The title was the third-highest selling game on the Xbox Live Arcade service in 2010, generating around $7.5 million in revenue. The title won several awards from industry groups after its release, and was named as one of the top games for 2010 by several publications. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Limbo (video game)

[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Limbo (video game) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 13, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 13, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Lead developer Arnt Jensen and artist Morten Bramsen from Playdead

Limbo is a puzzle-platform video game and the premiere title of independent Danish game developer Playdead. The game was released in July 2010 as a platform exclusive title on Xbox Live Arcade, and was later ported to the PlayStation Network and Microsoft Windows via Steam. Limbo is a 2D sidescroller, incorporating the physics system Box2D to govern environmental objects and the player character. The player guides an unnamed boy through dangerous environments and traps as the boy searches for his sister. The developer built the game's puzzles expecting the player to fail before finding the correct solution. Playdead called the style of play "trial and death", and used visually gruesome imagery for the boy's deaths to steer the player from unworkable solutions. The game is presented primarily in monochromatic black-and-white tones, using lighting, film grain effects and minimal ambient sounds to create an eerie atmosphere often associated with the horror genre. Limbo received positive reviews, but its minimal story polarised critics. A common point of criticism from reviewers was that the high cost of the game relative to its short length might deter players from purchasing the title. The title was the third-highest selling game on the Xbox Live Arcade service in 2010, generating around $7.5 million in revenue. The title won several awards from industry groups after its release, and was named as one of the top games for 2010 by several publications. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tar12-startingline.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tar12-startingline.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

[edit]

DYK for Worlds Apart (Fringe)

[edit]

Orlady (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith?

[edit]

Hi, re this revert, I'm just curious to why you believed this was 'good faith'? This user blanked out fully referenced sections, so they could ask about games and post their email address. Reading it through, it seems like they knew what they were doing. Best --Chip123456 (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a purely malicious action, it was a new user thinking it was a place to get help. Ergo, it is good faith to assume that he didn't mean to disrupt WP with the change. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They have been a member since 11 May. Also look at their contributions. I can't really say that they show any good faith. I think a simple Twinkle Rollback would of been more appropriate, but that's just me! --Chip123456 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brony

[edit]

hi. sorry if i edit conflicted you on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. i am done for now, i want to see what you are adding before i make any more minor fixes. Brohoof! -badmachine 14:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of John MacEnroe...

[edit]

"You can not be serious!" Plot summaries are assumed to be referenced to the original source? Well, Ok, if you can show me where this is real, genuine policy, I guess I'll go with it or consider whether it is a thing Wikipedia should change. But it must be unique in that it is a primary source that is acceptable? Tell me more :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in policy but long-standing common sense - if we're talking about a published fictional work, the obvious source for the plot is the work itself and thus it is it's own source, and certainly not original research or contentious info that needs sorucing. One can include cites if there's parts of the work that are not immediately apparent or simply to help out, but its not required, and 99% of the time, these will be citations that point back to the original work. The only requirement becomes if there's anything interpretative in the summary that needs to be included to understand the work but obviously not clear from the movie, that needs to be sourced. You can see that very few feature articles on published work include sources for the plot. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has never been strong on truth instead of verifiability, something the original source is, according to our rules on reliable sources, unable to provide. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires all facts to have or be capable of having citations. Common sense is not an attribute much valued if it is not citable. Other articles do not, by definition, set a precedent for any other article. All of which points to the fact that you are correct and so am I. But the rules of this place appear to be against your expressed opinion. Where does one go from here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The work is implicitly the source, ergo while there's no citation, the plot summary can be validated against the source, and thus no formal inline citation is needed. This appears to be the most recent discussion on the matter. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at the discussions in this area, too. I have not yet found one where participants have reached a conclusion. Instead they all appear to have died of boredom (the discussions, not the editors). If the discussions have been held ad nauseam as at least one area states, then this area of the Wisdom of Crowds is failing and failing badly. It must be possible to reach a consensus on this, primarily because there are only two basic views. One is the one you express and the other is the one I express. You use logic and so do I. The difficulty we face is that the rules do not appear to allow your logic, a route that is reasonable, and appear to prescribe mine, something I grant you may be unreasonable.
What I can't work out is where to raise this in order to get a definitive statement in a policy, and I do mean policy, not guideline. Once raised in the correct policy making or altering forum, one presumes a decision must be reached. What do you think? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be policy. Again, what the common thinking is which isn't codified is that plot summaries don't need citations but it also isn't a completely forbidden practice: in other words, it's a guideline, not a policy. And to that end, the best place to add that is likely at WP:CITE. And in this case, its not likely that we're changing established practice but codifying what is practiced. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is what consensus is all about. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

[edit]

Synchronicity

[edit]

Hi, Masem, I ran across you in the WT:N archive as well as two recent discussions, mixed martial-arts notability, and then my attempt to clarify summary style in re notability. The latter is partly related to the former, in that I am trying to determine how summary style applies to a wide variety of N debates I have observed over the years, with MMA being the catalyst topic. (I believe that a clear statement of summary style might be a workable compromise in the MMA topic-area challenge, so I added text from other guidelines into WP:SS and have been interacting with Dmcq there, and at WP:SIZE (now an RFC there).)

As you affirmed, a number of spinoff articles and lists are technically nonnotable by some readings. Irrespective of the MMA question, I think it important to clarify somewhere (like SS) that these are not "N fails". It seems some count them notable because they are semilogical subtopics, and thus can be regarded as sufficiently notably sourced, while others count them nonnotable but "part of" a notable topic. But like 1998 World Series of Poker, they sometimes rely on their parent topics to demonstrate sufficient secondary sourcing for V.

I'm hoping I can start a dialogue with you to see if my ideas are properly interpreting the guidelines or if there needs to be further clarification. It seems this has not been settled because there are multiple POVs about what N means in these cases, and that ambiguity may need to be preserved. But this is just to whet your appetite, because I've found it best to discuss topics like this with reasonable people first. JJB 05:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Xenos2008

[edit]

Hello Masem. I wanted to let you know that I made a request at WP:ANI for an uninvolved administrator to review the block of Xenos2008 as I believe it was made in contravention in policy. You are mentioned in the summary of events. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

[edit]

Talk back

[edit]

Can you please respond to this message? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

[edit]

Rock Band songs list

[edit]

Hey, I saw you undid my additions to that list, and I was wondering what the difference between network songs and downloadable songs is. I wasn't 100% about adding them, but since I'd added them to the songs' articles a couple years ago, and they were still on the RB site, I figured they were okay. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 03:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ping

[edit]

I've emailed you on a Signpost copyright matter. Tony (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox television Top Chef

[edit]

Template:Infobox television Top Chef has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. AussieLegend (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krolar62 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Discovery Channel International.svg

[edit]

At Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposal_2 I said that our readers are apparently too stupid to understand that File:Casi discovery channel.jpg means they have reached an article about the Discovery Channel. That was sarcastic of course. At Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_June_4#File:Discovery_Channel_International.svg, you're being outvoted 5-1. Or course, it's not a vote...but it will be closed as keep as you are the only one voting to get rid of it. This completely breaks policy of WP:NFCC #1. Every rationale on File:Discovery Channel International.svg is for identification purposes, to ensure the reader they've reached the right article. Nobody is so stupid as to be lost on seeing File:Casi discovery channel.jpg. But, that's not the purpose of the non-free logo in reality. The underlying problem is one of culture, as I've outlined before. When policy doesn't match up with culture, it's policy that has it wrong. But, if you try to change policy to reflect culture, you get shot down every time. I find this all very humorous! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_9&oldid=1136473464"