Hey, sorry I was in the middle of reworking my edit when you did yours. I think commercial success or failure for software needs to be defined like it is at the top of hardware for this article. 96.241.137.95 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21Call me Hahc21 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup, I'll help co-nom it, no problem, thanks for letting me know. :) --MASEM (t) 23:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21Call me Hahc21 14:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Loving is now at
21Call me Hahc21 16:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Quick Question about Story Arcs
I don't oppose the Doctor Who story arc page being moved to individual pages, but
Doctor Who (series 5) is already GA and I was wondering if sources would need to be added to the future summary to keep that status up to date. Also, I worked on adding summaries to each episode (for most of them anyway), so is the summary section always necessary? Glimmer721talk 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The idea is that if Story Arcs went away, then the wikilink to "crack in the universe" would find its home on Series 5 where the series summary would focus on that arching aspect. (at most, 2 paragraphs long and not touching on every episode, just the key points) As a plot summary it wouldn't need sourcing but it easily can be from non-primary sources since I know that various review/commentary sites followed the cracks theme. So it should not "break" the GA at all. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right no problem then. Would the individual episode summaries then become irrelevant? Glimmer721talk 01:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The idea is not to touch on every episode but gloss over the larger picture. See what I did already on
Doctor Who (Series 1) for how I am thinking this is going to be added. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
E-mailed you
Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
I know you're only doing your job, and doing it for the betterment of the encyclopedia. As you've seen in the discussion, I will go to the point of researching the image beyond the established claim of fair-use to see if it is actually includable under another license. I learned hard and fast on image copyrights through experience here; and I certainly respect the difficult role of keeping copyrighted images off of WP, tremendously. But there are unusual cases that blanket interpretations of #8 & #3 don't do any justice. This is one of them. I appreciate your input there, and no hard feelings to you or any other editor. Cheers :) Doctalk 04:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
MLP Episode 78 "Simple Ways" - Possible Writer Error
I put TBA in the 'Written by' section of the MLP episode "Simple Ways" cause the "Bats!" episode had Meghan McCarthy as the writer, not Merriwether Williams. The writer for "Simple Ways" might not be Meghan McCarthy. --Asaraullo05 12:45, 17 January 2014 (PST)
The press release for Bats! correctly had Williams listed as writer; it was only the episode title card that was wrong. There's no reason to doubt the press release at this time for the Simple Ways episode. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early access, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DayZ (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) 09:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Masem, I wonder if I could ask your advice about image releases. I'm looking for photographs of Plamil Foods products for the article about them. There are plenty on Flickr that I could probably get releases for. I'm thinking of images like this one. My question is whether a release from the photographer is enough for an image like that, where a company's products are displayed. Any advice would be appreciated. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The core issue you're pointing to is the "de minimus" aspect , if the product artwork is the center of the image that would make it a derivative work of Plamil's copyright. I would probably say that this would be considered de minimus - the focus of that photo is not so much on the packaging artwork, but on the overall display of the product, but that is a point that someone else might consider an issue in the future. But if we assume de mininus applies, then yes you only need the photographer's consent for a free image to use as a free image.
As another point, some of those packaging labels are simply text, which would fail the threshold of originality. And since you can't copyright the utility of the packaging approach (the celophane), photos of packages with those labels would definitely be clear of any copyrights save that of the photographer. This would make even more reasonable that you only need to get the photographer's consent to use as free. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's very helpful, thank you. I'll go ahead and try to get a release in that case. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coin images
Just to let you know, I have asked for a steer on the question from Jimbo on his talkpage. I hope I've represented your position fairly. Jheald (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abundance of press release citations in
My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 4)
Even though we discussed this in the article's talk page previously, I'm still conflicted as to what the purpose of citing each of The Hub's episodic press releases are. Episodes that have been made publicly available (via broadcast or otherwise) are already primary sources of themselves. Since the references are placed directly after the titles, this implies that the references are used to verify those titles. But since each episode already features the title, citing them is made redundant.
Using press release to cite first broadcast details of an episode is not a sourcing problem; the season already is shown notable by other sources, and using primary sources to affirm factual data is fine. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I was trying to say, which is that the episodes are already primary sources. Since the references are placed after the title, their function is to serve as a reference for the titles. This would be necessary if the episodes were broadcast without titles. But since they are, citing the press releases is entirely redundant. You don't see list articles like
True, the episodes themselves are sources for title and production credits, but airdates remain separate from that. These should be used to support the airdate and can be moved there. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The air dates are already referenced through the Zap2it ref in the "Original air date" column header. That reference applies to every air date listed in the column, excluding those not broadcast yet, for which we can reference air dates individually until it has been broadcast (since it's not as obvious for the reader). —
Technically, the Zap2It references are primary sources as well (they aren't analyzing or interpreting the data). The only reason the press releases are better sources is that they give all the casting and writing credits too. There is nothing wrong with number of primary sources - even if we end up with 26 different press releases; that's not the issue that when we talk about basing an article on too many primary sources. You can check with the TV wikiproject to see if they have any more advice, I just don't think there's harm here yet. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the references to the air date column (for the record). —
January 20th, you restored my edition of Clementine (The Walking Dead) in good faith. I hope I didn't do anything stupid, but I would see the image (File:Clementine, from The Walking Dead, A Telltale Game Series.png) in the article)
Thank you for the attention,
Yoshidome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshidome (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we don't have any reason - yet - to include a separate image of Clementine from the second season. She looks the same as the first (perhaps a bit taller, but that's trivial) and our NFC requirements set a higher bar for inclusion. Also, it is a very dark image and not useful for identifying her compared to the existing image .--MASEM (t) 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please change the license to CC-BY-3.0 I am unable to change the license for the image.
I am the original uploader/owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to reduce this to 300X300px, but the file page claims this is PD. What do you think? Is this really a PD image that I could add to the Hendrix bio? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following the discussions on Commons, it is apparently PD (due to lack of Copyright notice and renewal), so yes, it can be used freely on that page. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your reversion of my edits. Do you know what else I can use as a source? This is a real issue and affected every customer who bought those games from Telltale's store and feel that it's important that some mention is made. eyeball226 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately if only users on the forum are reporting it, and Telltale hasn't made its own statement towards it, there's no reliable source that can be used. We need a site like IGN or those in
WP:VG/RS explain there's an issue so that we know this is not something made up by users or that it not as severe as it seems. (even if it is true, WP has higher validation standards.) So I would keep my eyes out for a statement by Telltale that addresses there's an issue and then that can be used as a source. (We have similar problems when things happen on Steam and users claim there's a major issue, we have to wait until we have third-party confirmation or first-party clarification). --MASEM (t) 00:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm, that's difficult as Telltale have not commented publicly on the matter. All I have directly from them are emails from their support department and know people who have also had similar (and unfruitful) dealings with their support department. Obviously those emails wouldn't be suitable. Thank you for the advice though. eyeball226 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The episode was leaked; see 21:36 for credits for the songs. Cloudchased (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was leaked, I've seen it. But it has subsequently been pulled making the information unverifable. We'll wait until the episode properly airs to include that information. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#2 for commercial opportunity. If the photo is owned by a photo agency like Getty, and the photo specifically isn't subject of discussion, we cannot use it because there are people that actually sell that photo for money. No other reason otherwise why we can't use it. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The image is the subject of critical commentary in the article. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This goes to the point that Doc was making. The metal image of Jimi burning the guitar is discussed in detail, but that specific photo, on the other hand, is not. And as there are other photos of Jimi burning the guitar, we have to see if any of those are not as restricted (eg do not belong to an agency like AP or Gettys). --MASEM (t) 17:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the exact image is discussed by two authors: Musicologist David Moskowitz wrote: "The image of Jimi kneeling over his burning guitar at Monterey became one of the most iconic pictures of the era."[128] and Author Michael Heatley wrote: "The iconic image by Ed Caraeff of Hendrix summoning the flames higher with his fingers will forever conjure up memories of Monterey for those who were there and the majority of us who weren't."[121] Isn't that enough in-line critical commentary? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear if that still photo is the one of discussion, since there are at least 6 to 7 others out there from a Google Image search. Any of those capture the "image" of him burning the guitar , and while they are all likely non-free, one of them that does not fail NFCC#2 would be appropriate to be the subject of discussion for the article. But with NFCC#2 now in question on that specific one, we have to look for an alternative, and if all of them are Getty's, past practice would not allow us to use any of the photos unless on their own those one of those photos was notable. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Heatley is not talking about the image? Its the exact image we are talking about. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not likely that one sentence in one source is enough to make it "iconic" enough, especially when dealing with Getty images. It would probably have to be discussed in many sources to be iconic enough, as in something like File:Kent State massacre.jpg. Doctalk 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good start, for sure. From my experience, admins who delete on the side of caution do not like letting Getty images in at all, so see what Masem says. Doctalk 18:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have a photographer's name, it's clear that specific photo is the one people considered as the iconic one. I'm seeing more sources that do talk about the photo in that context, and at this point, I would say the weight of sourced discussion overrides the NFCC# issue. A different concern becomes how to show that in the article without going too far off tract from being about Jimi. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would think you'd also have to swap out anything in the FUR (i.e. anything after the first quote in the "Purpose of use" section) that only pertains to the "mental image" for these sources that pertain to this exact image. Doctalk 18:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum yes that needs to be done, documenting the nature and original photographer. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that while the FUR states: "The reduced resolution is not of a high enough quality that it could compete with the copyright holder's commercial interest", it is very clear that it is of equal resolution to the original. Doctalk 17:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the NFCC#2 issue even worse. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of any prgrams that reduce resolution? Also, what if we invented a watermark that read: "For educational purposes only"? That would certainly take care of NFCC#2? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be completely inappropriate to add a watermark, as for one, we can't change the license on that photo. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the new version satisfy NFCC#2? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest asking that at
WP:NFCR, or letting me ask that? We're not talking about outright deletion so FFD is not right, but it would be a good place to judge on the NFCC#2 issues. I believe I can explain how we're at this point to get the proper judgement there, but if you want to initiate it, that's fine. I personally think we're on the edge of keeping it, but I'm one voice. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Lets do that when you're confident that it will pass. Speaking of which, what do you think of this addition; are we there yet? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got enough there, the conundrum here is that when we allow NFCC#2, its for phots notable on their own and for a stand-alone page for them. Where the issues may come is using that image in context of Jimi's article instead of its own, but this is a case where it makes sense to have it on Jimi's article. I am 99% assured this photo can be used on WP, but some make say "you should make its own article" since you have 5 sources talking about it, and that makes it clear why we can ignore NFCC#2 for this. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a stand-alone article it would be a stub of one small paragraph; unless we dragged in lots of detail about Hendrix that really doesn't belong. Most of the sources say the exact same thing, so its not really like five that expand on the different aspects of the point. They all agree that its iconic, and two give a little bit of background. It is one of two or three seminal moments in Hendrix's life, and it made a significant impact on his career. It makes perfect sense at the Hendrix article. The section is about Monterey and the aftermath as it pertains to Hendrix. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the significantly reduced resolution take care of any concerns with NFCC#2? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No because these agencies want to license their photos they own at any resolution, hence simple reduction as to meet NFCC#3a doesn't fix anything in NFCC#2's issue. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it came down to it, couldn't we just use the one on Getty's website, with the copyright and author watermark already on there? Who could say that it violates NFCC#2 if Getty is giving it away online? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be worse. It will have the same problems and be worse for the readership with the watermark. And just because it's online and freely downloadable doesn't mean it is a free or safe/fair use of the image. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I notice that GabeMc is listing NFCC#4 again as a reason to delete the mugshot at the new NFCR. Do you believe that it is more likely than not that the source (again, directly answerable to Time Warner) published the mug without even considering the permission of the copyright holder? Doctalk 01:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been published - whether under the copyright holder's (if there is copyright) consent or not. So NFCC#4 doesn't apply save for figuring out the copyright term length. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't contest that it was previously published - he's saying it was published without the "true" copyright holder's permission, thus it fails #4. But who is the true copyright holder? No one conclusive, yet. I'm tired of beating my head on the desk on just this one point, and I will make my NFCR comments brief so to avoid walls of redundant explanatory text. Cheers :) Doctalk 01:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically a non-argument at this point - it's been published widely, irregardless of permission, so we're not going to consider NFCC#4. At the more basic level, at that time, a mugshot would have been developed shortly after its taking and clipped into their file, so for purposes of publication, that's the point that publication started.. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured on #4. Now... you are sure that we can't publish watermarked images that Getty is just "giving away" by having them on their site? Facepalm. I was forced to learn hard and fast on the simple basics of image policy long ago; and I'm hoping that it becomes similarly clear in a quick way for GabeMc. Cheers :) Doctalk 04:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, watermarked or not, the bar to include an image that is only available through an image service like Gettys or AP is extremely high, requiring significant discussion on the photo itself. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, but since I've commented in three different discussions before on it, I rather appear to push for its deletion. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - there is currently a discussion on ANI, the details arn't really important, about NFCR and I think there is a need for more admins working that area. I reviewed the board looking for some possible RfA candidates that participate there quite a bit and I saw that you actually participate there quite a bit. Is there any chance that you might consider changing your role into taking a more admin-presense there instead of editor? I'm also looking at possibly noming a few folks, I currently have
User:ТимофейЛееСуда in mind, but I've yet to speak to them. Do you have any other candidates in mind that work that area?--v/r - TP 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm already an admin so the RfA would not be necessary. My major concern is that my role at NFCR has been more to discuss the points, and most probably know I fall on a stricter adherence to NFC. It is possible for me to be more a closer at least in the discussions I haven't been involved with but I've purposely stayed away from direct admin action save for obvious cases to prevent some calling out me as being jury, judge and executioner when it comes to NFC. If you think it is reason to deal with cases that I have not participated in and close them as neutrally as I can, then I can do more to close out discussions. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd help if you could be a closer there. But I think we shouldn't put all of that responsibility on you alone. I'd like to at least send ТимофейЛееСуда to RfA and maybe one other. I think in cases of BLP and Copyright, it's better to err on the side of harsher enforcement and so I don't think your take on NFCC will be an issue. What we need, though, are admins who know the criteria well and have experience in applying them. We can't just stick any ol' admin in that area and expect them to understand the application of the criteria in the discussions and whether it's a load of crap or a true application of policy.--v/r - TP 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your assessment of ТимофейЛееСуда for RfA. And as long as I have other admins' "blessing" to speak to close when I am direct uninvolved but otherwise considered involved in NFC, I feel more comfortable in doing more, as long as if editors start criticizing me of being involved, I can point to something like what you said here that it is considered okay as long as I'm not closing debates I'm clearly involved with. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my understanding of
WP:INVOLVED goes, being involved in a topic area does not make you involved in a discussion or dispute. That's a broad definition. So unless you were directly involved in the discussion, I think it's quite a stretch to call you involved. I've been called a deletionist and I still close AfD discussions. I think you're safe and I think NFCR needs an admin who is verse in NFCC but might be a bit strict much more than they need an admin who is oblivious to NFCC. Besides, Fastily was considered harsh and he worked that area for years successfully.--v/r - TP 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Another FFD
So, now that we've proven that critical commentary about the Hendrix mugshot cannot be sourced do we start another FFD, and if so, are you willing to do that, because Doc will blab on and on about any imperfections in the language. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever read
WP:FORUMSHOP, GabeMc? Open the FfD, by all means. Doctalk 02:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please stop following me around and insulting me. You agreed with the NFCR and the closing admin recommended the RfC. Please stop badgering and hounding my every move. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, I hope. I have commented several times on this talk page; and I am absolutely not "hounding" you. There was no "insult" in anything I posted above. Doctalk 02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not kidding. I think that your behavior has crossed over into hounding and badgering, and I respectfully request that you stop following me around and trying to undermine my every action. You are being a bully, Doc; please stop. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm a bully? Read
WP:HOUND. Following "your every action" is described there. Unless Masem tells me not to post here, I am under no obligation to avoid this page. To assuage your fears of "hounding": I will never (quite voluntarily) post to your talk page ever again. You can post to mine anytime you want, however. You see me "following you around" outside of your crusade to delete this image: report me. And you'd better have some evidence of "hounding". Doctalk 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
What is your rationale for keeping the image? Do you even have one other than your preoccupation with crime? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be comfortable in the idea of an FFD at this time with 3 concurrent discussions going. I was against the NCFR even going in the place, the discussion should be limited to the RFC at Hendrix. Now that we have shown that the source that mostly likely would have talked about the mugshot doesn't, disproving the supposition of the last FFD's close, the case for removal is now clear at that RFC, and there an uninvolved, should he find the same, should close the RFC and delete the image to stop extending this round-robin of discussions. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. The RfC is fatally flawed, as it is the only pre-loaded pseudo-deletion discussion that guarantees victory for those pushing for deletion based on a known "no consensus" outcome. Removal based on a "no consensus to retain" will be aggressively appealed, as it is out of process by design. We do not build consensus in this way. Doctalk 03:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need consolidation of the RFC/NFCR discussions and closing the DRV, in the first place. Whether to keep or delete the image has to be done at one location. However, calling the RFC flawed is wrong - NFCCE requires that the rational be considered by consensus to be valid, or otherwise it should be deleted. This floating "no consensus" will remain a problem otherwise. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There really is nothing different about this image, or the normal process of handling it; or how the outcome of "no consensus" is determined in cases like this. Nothing in the first two points of
WP:NOCONSENSUS addresses images with claimed subjective NFCC issues regarding particular images. We do not default to delete based solely on claims of NFCC failure. And we do not determine a "new consensus" through a sham RfC by utterly ignoring the previous consensus (which is falsely claimed to never have existed). Doctalk 03:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Since the last 3 FFDs on the image have been "no consensus" that means there is no consensus from the start for retaining the image. And NFCCE says we delete if no valid rationale can be made for a non-free; that has to be one agreed to be consensus. The only reason it was keep with no consensus in the last FFD was because of the possible connection that could be made and which has been explored now and shown unlikely to be made. This is the change that now comes into play, in addition to the fact that "no consensus" is not a state we leave NFC in. If you can't justify inclusion of the image beyond a doubt to sway consensus, it needs to be deleted. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what policy says. And it's not what policy instructs editors to do: the default is plainly to keep rather than delete. Subjective opinions on the NFCC do not a consensus make unless there's an actual consensus. With a policy this wide-open to interpretation, we must fall back on what is already in place for instruction. Opening multiple noticeboard entries on the same issue is not the way to achieve consensus. That's "Consensus 101"-type stuff. Doctalk 04:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For any other xFD, that may be true, but NFC requires consensus to keep, per policy and the Foundation resolution. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search of the NFC guideline page for the terms "consensus", "default" and "keep" do little to clarify this position for me. I also suggest that a better source for the Monterey image be found aside from this garbage source.
WP:BLOGS clarifies what sources we should appropriately link to, as an encyclopedia. This source fails RS in every way imaginable. Doctalk 05:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
A quick search shows this would be a much better source. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It should be switched out, then. Will you do the honors? I don't want to ask the uploader, as apparently I've been a'hounding him :( Doctalk 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - but not for me! It's really is better (and ultimately safer) that way. I definitely respect you as an admin, BTW. If I've insulted your character in the past because of an issue we disagree over, I do apologize. We can agree to disagree on certain things, and no bad feelings towards you, GabeMc, or anyone else in this issue. It's strictly business, nothing personal. Cheers :) Doctalk 06:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting MIDI clip in a page
Hi.
Do you know of any method to insert a MIDI clip with description in a page? Embedded player does not seem to appear in this case; I tried {{
As best as I can tell, no. An option if you want to have the audio available is to record the MIDI yourself as a usable normal audio file which would have the same license as the MIDI. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so entails maintaining license chain, which in turn creates licensing hell for non-free content. I'll create a template. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hendrix and drugs
Masem, you've made a couple of comments to the effect that if the article only detailed Hendrix's drug use more that the mugshot image might be appropriate. Please don't go there because: 1) Believe it or not, he was not the druggie that people think; reliable sources support the fact that his useage was not anything above average, 2) it plays into the stereotype that he was a drug addict that ODed, but he was not an addict and his overdose was accidental; all he wanted was sleep, not to get high on drugs. I will absolutely not support any additions to that effect as
WP:UNDUE, so please don't encourage editors to make a case for Hendrix's drug use as a way to retain the mugshot, because to do so would be to move the focus away from where it should be to a place that it shouldn't be. The preponderance of reliable sources agree that as far as the 1960s, he wasn't as into substances as most rock stars. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Except, that's exactly the route BDD suggested in the FFD close. It is improper not to go there, given how the sources are clear that by the time this arrest happened, he considered himself clean. I'm in no way implicating that he died by drug overdose, but that all the arguments on the mugshot have required me to read the sources and show that showing that he had done drugs but went clean by this point is one of the few reasons to even begin justifying the mugshot, as to explain the "I can't believe this" look he had. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But DDD does not control article content over what the sources say. He can't demand that we source something that isn't reliably verifiable; thus forcing a
WP:SYNTH. He was wrong about that. Its a very minor point overall, but I will tell you that Hendrix was lying about his drug use. He perjured himself several times during the trial, and he later laughed about how ridiculous his claim of quitting weed was. He didn't use heroin, which is what he was arrested for (and hash). Trust me, its a gigantic bag-of-worms that cannot be dealt with fairly in the summary article, but to suggest that they need to build-up material about his drug use to justify the image is a very bad idea. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, as far as Hendrix being surprised about what customs found its interesting to note that during the trial the prosecutor directed a line of questioning regarding Jimi's reaction, and the prosecutor implied that Hendrix said that he didn't see the officer find the drugs, but when asked about them by the officer seemed to already know that they came from his bag. So, to pursue the angle of how surprised he was would be to repeat what sympathetic writers have repeated despite the facts, which indicate otherwise. Here is a link to a transcript of Hendrix's testimony. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have sources to counter the claims that those other articles have, we have to go with what sources actually provide. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I own every source that exists on Hendrix. What do you need a cite for, just ask. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How surprised could he have been if he was warned about it just 15 hours prior. Some sources have him being warned on the plane just minutes before. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the issue of the mugshot use, if you believe how the drug use and arrest section is presenting a one-sided view of the situation, you should probably demonstrate this on the Hendrix talk page citing the sources that you believe are counter to what are there. If that section is not reflecting the sourcing appropriate, then there is a serious problem and that section has to be rewritten. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the section? Its fine, so please stop implying that I am wrong about the sources. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see that the bit about "Purple Haze" isn't a myth, its an error? It was recorded 6 months before Monterey, so the story is complete bunk. How can a song be about a drug that was named after an event that had not yet taken place? And why would we give space to a false story about "Purple Haze" in an overview article about Hendrix that already devotes 14% of the words to drugs and is also as long as it should be? Are you playing with me? Or are you just that confused? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are going to come to the article (before reading anything there) with the myth that Hendrix was a junkie, which you've said from your sources is certainly not the case. Then spell this out for the reader to present that 1) there are myths about Hendrix' drug use and 2) they are false because of various examples you can set. Avoiding these myths when you can say you can prove them false is what you should be doing, otherwise that's sweeping a known issue under the rug. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the section and then tell me that there isn't enough drug coverage, okay. It 14% of the article; do you understand that? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope
it does not. my restrictions are IBAN related. You could've emailed me before hand, to make sure, but since you assumed, i will edit it for the sake of no more advantageous editors looking at my talkpage and reporting me in ANI for another dumb case of bad-faith. Next time you ASSUME that i'm breaking any rules that relate to that, just e-mail me to verify.Lucia Black (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
xbox
sent you an xbox friends request. But it seems like you are still on 360 and Ive moved on to the Bone almost exclusively. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Beliebin'"
...[1] The photo credit of "Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department" makes {{PD-FLGov}} 100% valid. I said I wouldn't upload it, but now I'm wondering what would happen if I did... Doctalk 07:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're 100% right it is a valid image in terms of license. The concern I'd raise is the BLP implications; for example if you happened to catch on camera a celebrity doing something lewd in otherwise public locations, while it would be a free image it would also be defamation of character and likely removed on that ground. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - you retagged this image as being a candidate for transfer to commons. My understanding is that this isn't true; the image was published in France, and is not yet in the public domain there. For Commons, the rule is "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." I'm not sure how to manage copyright tagging in this situation. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I see that Jan. 1, 2014 was the correct date for the work to enter the public domain in France. Easchiff (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it just flipped over, and I did check (again) to verify France is life+70. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that the image is here to stay on the Canadian passport page, but I do have one question. Isn't there supposed to be a {{Non-free reviewed}} template placed on the page by the user who reviewed it? RA0808talkcontribs 10:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right though I think we're a bit slack in that. But I will add that to the image page now. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Masem, I'm having a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox video game regarding the role of Technical Director. I was wondering if you would like to add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. --- Wrath X ( talk ) 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of a handful of photos that the San Francisco Public Library had given me written permission to use in Wikipedia. I submitted that photo of the docks under Fair Use and it successfully went thorough its Non-Free Content Review process. Since then I submitted 2 other photos that were also granted written permission by SF Library on the same permission form, and were also taken before 1923 suggesting that they are in Public Domain. I submitted the 2 new photos under Public Domain but apparently
Can you please take a look at the 3 photos and possibly dealt with the templates, or advise me how to deal with this? James Carroll (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why
Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a possibility that the Terrific Street photo can be shown to be PD. Per the link to the SF library archives, I see there is a newsprint caption associated with that; that means it was published in a newspaper, very likely. If that was before 1923, the work is definitely PD. I'd try asking the library if they can date that publication. There are other cases it might be PD if it was after that, but would require a copyright notice if it was before 1989.
But Stefan's right here - barring any identification of the photo's publication, the non-free tag and license appear correct. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am still confused. Which of the 3 photos received incorrect new tags, and how should I deal with that? Is the Fair Use classification of the Docks photo now in jeopardy again? James Carroll (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader should always specify where a photograph was originally published. Alternatively, the uploader could postpone the upload until 95 years have passed since 1977, when it will be sufficient to show that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. --
Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
If the original publication is not known but have been published since (as these photos all have been, through the SF Library), the approach that James took to upload them is proper. the NFCC#4 issue is null here since the SF Library has published the photos even if they aren't the original photographer, and the previous discussion clearly shows NFCC#1 is met. I'm not commenting on how well any of the other NFCC criteria are met, but there's no reason to remove these images on the licensing issues alone. They are still likely non-free due to fully knowing publication though creation date is known, and US copyright law does define the term for such works. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as wrong license , because if they are pre 1923 they should be PD if US images right? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true. We have no idea when these were published first, which is the difficulty here. If they were published before 1923, then yes, they'd be PD but we have no clear evidence of that. See commons:Commons:Hirtle chart. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, please tell me if I now have now this correctly...
It looks like the photo that I tried to upload as Public Domain (Dance Halls of Pacific Street...) will have to have be processed as Fair Use, and so I must add the Non-Free Use Rational to the Summary part of the photos file. After that, I still need to attend to its presence on the Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files page. I'm guessing I should say on that page that a Non-Free Use Rational template was added, and also include references to this discussion from your talk page discussion. Can one of you guys pull that photo from the Possibly_unfree_files page's list, or do I have to allow the discussion play out on that page? Should I be doing more to avoid deletion of the photo?
Are the other 2 photos (Docks and Terrific Street), which were uploaded as Fair Use and already have Non-Free Use Rationals in their Summaries, safe from deletion? If so, who has the authority to process/remove the "wrong license" Tag off those photos' files? Can I do that after a brief explanation on the photo's Talk Page? Thanx. James Carroll (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the Dance halls, all you need to do is tag it with a non-free license, add a non-free rationale, and then go ahead and remove the "possibly unfree files" template since you've resolved that issue (That will remove that from being listed). Same with the other two photos for now, simply to remove the warning issues. You have every right to fix the issues related to the warning and remove those themselves as they are just tags that put them into categorys; assuming in good faith you fix them, you can remove the tagged yourself. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, why did you remove the template telling that some of the files violate
Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No sooner did I insert the Non-Free Use Rational templates to the Summary, than
User:Stefan2 inserted a new complaining template that said that the this old grainy photo had to be Re-Sized? Is that really necessary? Is there any appeals route to allow the photo to stay at its current modest size, which is much smaller than the other scans that the San Francisco Public Library is offering?James Carroll (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Non-free files must have a low resolution. They must also be in use, which not all of the files you uploaded are. --
Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I restored the orphan tags as they are presently not used (that was my bad). James, you should add those images to the Terriifc Street article ASAP - once you do, you can go ahead and remove the "di-orphaned" template. However, Stefan is right that the full size image isn't appropriate while these are determined to be non-free. If we later can access these as free, then we can restore the full size image. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will have the photos installed before tomorrow. James Carroll (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Masem, you mentioned during the Pound image discussion that it might be a good idea to look for people on Commons with expertise on older images and copyright. Can you think of anyone I could approach? I've become quite interested in the image, and I'd like to figure out how we can determine its status. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I see you started a discussion about this there, so maybe I'll add something to it. Thanks, SlimVirgin(talk) 04:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not in any way trying to delete the image, it's fine as non-free at worst; just want to make sure our copyright bases are covered. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, it's fine. It's just something I've become intrigued by, an interesting mystery: how come there are two copies, how did they end up where they did, where is the negative, etc. I'm sure we'll never be able to find all that out, but I'm interested in pursuing the threads, and if we find it's free all the better. SlimVirgin(talk) 05:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for if we can absolutely for certain tagging it free :) --MASEM (t) 05:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overzealous Photo Processor Pursuing New Persistent Deletion Maneuvers
User:Stefan2
seems like he is obsessing about the same historic photos which have already received much discussion by all of us, despite the fact that the San Francisco Public Library has given written permission for them to be used in Wikipedia. As you recall, first he complained about questionable publication dates, and so we had to change the status from Public Domain to Fair use. Then he further demanded that photos, though old and grainy, be reduced in size.
Well, now he is creating new reasons to have the photos deleted from the articles and is contending that they are not relevant to the articles, despite that they are directly discussed within different articles.
User:Stefan2
is again raising the argument of Publication Date as a rational for deletion, even after it was previously discussed by all of us. He is also again trying to use the issue of Replacability as deletion criteria despite the fact that it was previously stated that Replacability is not seen as a significant factor for old historic photos.
Please weigh in on the discussion he has started on the Files for Deletion page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_March_1#Terrific_Street . These photos are an asset to these articles of which I have made much research and contributions. His persistent barricades to my efforts to include those valuable photos do not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. James Carroll (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting on the issue concerning WP:NFCC#1 , but his complaint still contends that
WP:NFCC#8
(Contextual significance) are valid criteria for the deletion of the photos, despite the fact that my response gives evidence that they are not valid issues for deletion in this particular situation.
Could you please also weigh in on the criteria of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as well, otherwise the photos could be unnecessarily deleted? James Carroll (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stefan2
continues to target photos for deletion which appear in articles where I have made significant contributions.
This time he want to delete a photo from before 1923 which has been used in multiple articles of Wikipedia for 9 years without generating a copyright complaint (link is above). His rational is that there is "no evidence that it was published before 1923."James Carroll (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is correct though: when the photo was created is different from when the photo was published, and US copyright law is based on the latter, and as there's no clear publication before the 1999 book, this needs to be questioned as a free image. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question
First of all, I want to thank you for all support, assistance and encouragement you've given me, especially with your co-nomination. In my recent successful RfA, I promised to be opened to recall with specific terms similar to User:TParis/Recall. Before I make any edits that require the mop, I wanted to cement my own recall process, including a list of editors who can specifically call for the recall of my administrative rights. Due to my high level of respect for you and your opinion, I wanted to know if I could include you on said list. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be fine with that. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you. I was truly shocked, when someone reverted edit I was making considering
WP:AGF, well I just put GameRankings link and score in the article using template {{Video game reviews}}, where GameRankings is one of the options. What have I done wrong to keep reverted ? Greetings, Sir Lothar (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You're running up against one of the more vocal members of VG. As best I know, you really haven't done anything wrong (as long as you haven't edit warred, which doesn't seem to be the case, you started discussion before it got there. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just added [3]. I don't see anything controversial in it. I have good knowledge of rules (
WP:NPOV) from pl.wiki, it didn't break neither of those, so reverting by Hahnchen was wrong in my opinion. Besides, he should behave more politely and shouldn't shout. Sir Lothar (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Reeva Steenkamp
Hi Masem. First of all we've interacted an a few occasions and I thank you for your courteous explanations.
Regarding the Reeva Steenkamp image I uploaded, I noted your remark
If the photo is now owned or managed by Gettys, a photo agency, any use on our end impacts their commercial opportunities for the photo, and that fails our NFCC#2 requirement. Any other non-press agency photo of her would be fine, but the press agency aspect is the problem here with this one.
at the review (already archived) I requested
WP:NFC#UUI 7
is the problem:
A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.
In the first place that's not very clear, is it, in the sense that
WP:NFCI 8b
doesn't make any such proviso and there's no particular reason to suppose there might be. Why single out press agencies?
"Remember that WP's image use restrictions are stronger than US Fair Use law. Yes, I think anyone could easily argue that a press agency photo used at WP is fair use, but that doesn't necessarily make it comply with WP's policy. That said, I do see the slippery slope of disallowing press agency photos and no restrictions on others. Say a third party web site uses the press agency photo on their page without attribution but in the spirit of fair use (a very common thing for non-commercial websites to do); a WP editor uploads that photo attributing it to the site with all appropriate and correct FUR. Effectively we now have a press release photo on WP that should fail this guideline but that we can't tell that. I suspect there's numerous images with that distinction on here already. More to the case in point, I think this points to the need to make sure the source portion of the FUR is completed, with images taken off the web using the exact URL they were obtained from."
That is exactly the position I found myself. The history of this image is exactly as I described and it was first credited as a "File photo" by the South African Times.
I intend to retire from editing Wikipedia after I have finished editing at Trial of Oscar Pistorius (I continue with that only because I undertook it as as a favour to a friend). I do mean however to research this particular issue of press agency photographs a little further, because I'm not convinced there is consensus in the community about the issue. Can you point me to a debate where that consensus was definitivelt achieved? I would be grateful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The core issue relating to press photos is from NFCC#2 (policy), that we have to respect commercial opportunities, and since a press agency like Getty has a core business of selling images, our reuse of any images impacts their commercial opportunity. This is what NFC#UUI #7 spells out more specifically. And in regards to my comment, if we had no idea it was from a press agency and best we can tell came from a non-press agency source, we can't bring the NFCC#2 into question, but as soon as the press agency ownership was discovered, then we have to deal with it. In this case, we know it is from a press agency a priori so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm really querying is the consensus on the core issue of the special status of press agencies. It's not clear to me why they should have it or that there's consensus that they should have it. I really would be grateful if you could tell me when that consensus was reached. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any specific point, but it dates back to pre-2006, when we had a "Fair Use Policy" and today's NFCC#2 was that version's #2. All take page articles from
WT:NFC that I see that talk about press photos point out that press photos are themselves a product, so by using them without a very strong case (the one being that the photo itself is the subject of discussion), we are harming their commercial rights. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
Do you have an opinion about draftspace and NFCC images? Are these handled as if this was articlespace? Unscintillating (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they've been handled as non-main space historically (eg user-space drafts, AFC, etc.) --MASEM (t) 20:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a comment at WP:AI that says that, "Any non-free images in the article must be removed", but it doesn't explain how to preserve the images. What is current practice regarding ways to preserve articles in user space or AFC? I didn't see anything on the AFC mainpage, and I don't know where this is discussed for user pages. Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We really are not set up to preserve images if they have been moved from mainspace to userspace. There might be case-by-case basis that images can be preserved (eg the image is deemed likely to meet NFC but the original source no longer exists), but in general our policies are set up to ultimately delete orphaned images that result from these areas. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC) --MASEM (t) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{
WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
We just had an edit conflict at NFCR. While I agree that the logo is not original enough for copyright, it's the SVG code that needs additional attention. So, would you mind reopening the discussion? De728631 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAR and WP:VL. According to WP:VL, there are certain channels considered reliable, such as Associated Press
, and the only notable channel to have any reference to Mycaruba/Game Grumps is Game Grumps itself.
Obviously I won't get too far if my only reliable source is a video game commentary show run by just a few people, so I'd like to ask for your help on what I can do. --Matthew (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for a reliable source independent of GG to mention this, and that might not happen. Wikipedia generally tries to avoid this type of trivia and hence why we want to look for reliable sources to show an interest in this so that we can be sure inclusion is fine. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Errors on 19 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi. [[User talk:|Niemti]] and I are once again involved in a conflict on the
WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, and refuses to respond to my requests for clarification in a straightforward, civil manner. I have started a discussion at ANI. Since you're familiar with past problems involving him, can you offer your assistance? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
Hello there. I just have a question. Do you like to watch MLP:FiM? I see that you are helping out most of the articles for MLP. Are you a Brony or just one of those people who likes to watch the show? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.167 (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Menacer NFCC question
Hey Masem—when you have a sec, could I have your NFCC expert opinion on the non-free image in
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
Hacking (computing) (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) 08:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NFC user issues
As you seem to spend more time focusing on NFC behavior than I do, if you have the time please take a look at this thread and the user's general history. Uploading images to WP from the for-profit Getty that are identified at the source as "royalty free" but still subject to a licensing fee, claiming on a talk page that they are instead merely "commercial free", not understanding that even "commercial free" is not "free" for our purposes, and despite all of that tagging the file as "public domain"... All of this seems so egregious a failure of basic reading comprehension as to be in bad faith. Their deleted contributions history (and recently blanked talk page) indicate a longstanding issue with uploads, so we may have a good candidate for banning from file uploads if not Wikipedia entirely. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I commented and noted that we have actually discussed the situation on those new licensing terms at WT:NFC (which still comes out - nope, can't use). --MASEM (t) 20:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he had combined them into a montage image that couldn't possibly meet the new Getty conditions you were talking about in that WT:NFC thread for "free" social media use, I don't think he could even claim reliance on that (even notwithstanding that the new terms still fall under NFC here). postdlf (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that definitely can't be used. The first condition Getty requires is the embedding nature, which we can't provide at all. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a list would work, or it would need to be like the crowdfunded video game list, in that we require a reasonable source that notes the game is on the service. Categories would definitely work: you would have two considerations, one for "List of games released on Steam Early Access", and likely a broader topic, "List of games in early access" (or whatever name). The latter would only be on an article while it was in early access; the former term would never go away. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WT:NOT#RfC: Should the reference to Wikinfo be replaced with a reference to Wikiversity? I have made separate support and oppose headings for each proposal for added clarity (as you voted exactly opposite to me but using a different format). I believe I have interpreted your comments correctly and put them in the right sections, but you may wish to verify this for yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Thryduulf: Saw that and thanked you for it. :) --MASEM (t) 16:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I saw the thanks after saving the edit here :) Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Brony Tale Theater Markets
The press release says 20 to 30 different markets, which, depending on the size of the market, and whether or not they're referring to markets as theater chains or regions, that's significantly more than 20 to 30 screens. I just changed it back to "markets" in the article. - Marshan3q (talk) 23 April 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
Talkback
Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya. Message added 05:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WP:VPPR#Allow images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration. Until SCOTUS upheld Golan v. Holder I think we considered there was doubt whether this class of images were under US copyright at all. Now it looks as if WMF are suggesting individual images might be under copyright but that this is very hard to establish. Anyway, WMF are willing to host these files and say WMF is legally protected so long as they are willing to do DMCA takedown. I think to call these files "non-free" would be a mistake because people will get confused with "fair use" but to say they are PD may be going too far. Perhaps we have a situation "Might be URAA copyright but, because we are not certain, we allow this file unless we are sure that it is in copyright". How you think these files should be regarded and described? Ideally commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and en:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA would be identical. Thincat (talk
) 08:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Thincat: We should normalize our template to Commons' version to help interoperability of such images. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, to continue our discussion after we were so rudely interrupted, I am led to propose #17 WP:NFC#UUI:
Propose #17.Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 [is not fair use]. However it may be appropriate if the stamp itself is described alongside (#9) in a passage (#8), including sourced commentary (#7). The stamp must have been issued to the public (#5) or become controversial (#4), but it cannot also be used at the same time in its own article, which would take precedence for displaying the image (#6), unless the artwork is in the public domain.
That is based on the following understanding derived from items 4-9.
4. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is controversial. — A map, is not fair use, unless "the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article." — okay when the stamp itself is controversial.
5. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is proper subject for commentary. — An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war is not fair use, unless "the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.” — okay when the stamp image is the subject of commentary, when the stamp has received attention.
6. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 image can be fair use if it does not have its own article. — An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, is not fair use, "if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)” — okay when the stamp does not have its own article.
7. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. A photo from a press or photo agency is not fair use, "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.” Okay when the stamp itself has sourced commentary in the article.
8. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself. A baseball card is not fair use to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds unless "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." Okay when the stamp itself is described in a passage.
9. Use of a a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is discussed alongside the image. A magazine or book cover is not fair use unless "the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary.” — okay when the stamp is described alongside the image.
I do not believe we need explicit advice on stamps as the issues we've discussed are pointed covered by other NFCC/NFC. I would however suggest possibly expanding out the advice at
WP:STAMPS WikiProject Philately, as well as expanding the claims to any copyrighted stamp that includes post-78 US stamps as well as various stamps from other countries. As well as considering what we found with the Civil War series, that stamps that are just republication of old art w/o other creative changes will be considered free for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
| first = Bo | last = Moore | date = April 7, 2014 | accessdate = April 8, 2014 | work = [[Wired (magazine|Wired]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2014/04/
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
"All things timey-wimey" is a direct quote from the trading card and other Hasbro material; see [4]. (Technically, the wiki is not a reliable source, but primary sources - e.g. the card itself - may be used as a source for obvious facts.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's the quote from the card, but it is the reference to Doctor Who, which is only "timey wimey" that is being referred to here. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for your message
Will do my best to follow format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Real Radio/Heart merger
Hi, you proberly know nothing about radio stations but you may have heart that on the 6 May all Real Radio stations will be rebanded to Heart. I cant remember the users name, but he or she created article
Real Radio Scotland to Heart Scotland (station rebrand)). Unfortunetly I cant do that my self yet, because I only edited 5 times so far. Yes I'm new.Specialdude57 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BioShock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom Force (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) 08:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
External links
For stamps which are USPS fair use, instead of the images themselves, I have taken your suggestion and added external links to specific pages inside Arago online at the National Postal Museum.
The Virginia colonial capitol building at Williamsburg is pictured in the 1988 USPS stamp commemorating the bicentennial of the ratification of the Constitution, which is available for viewing at Virginia ratification stamp from "Arago: people, postage & the post", online at the Smithsonian Institute's National Postal Museum.
Another editor said --although he did not press the issue-- that the convention may be in violation of a rule against multiple external links in an article, or multiple links to the same webpage in the External Links section. However, a) the external links are all clustered at the bottom of each section where they occur, b) there is generally text around them which explain the link even when the article is printed. c) they are a small percent of the article content, d) each link is to a specific address, bringing the unique image of the individual stamp, not the front page of Arago, so they are not strictly links to the "same" page.
Save for the External Link section we typically don't use inline external links on article pages (but this does depend on situation). But the easiest solution here is to convert the link into an inline citation which retains the line within the citation and there's no restriction against inline cites. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly seems to be a reasonable response if challenged. It will take a little doing to craft a good way of pointing the reader to the notes to get the visual. An editorial note at the end of each section might do it, with description ending in a note, and the note including citation and link to the image page at National Postal Museum. I'll try to work something up starting at History of Virginia on stamps, as that seems to be attracting the most viewers, and the article I am now actively working on. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative to avoid the EL in the body is to have a list/formatted section in the "External Links" section, that would start off "Stamp pages at the NPM:" and then list each link with the stamp in question within that section, so it is clear its not just a reference and easier to follow. That's (in my opinion) completely reasonable for that type of section. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Masem. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
Battlefield 5, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: isn't completely made up - plenty of ghits. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Whoops
Accidently removed info about Comstock sorry about the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorsHangout (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A cupcake for you!
Thanks for explaining the CC licences. I understand the situation much better now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy Taxi
Cinnamon and Ms. Venus are so underrated. Black women in video games. Boaxy (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the My Little Pony Comic.
There a crazy Equestria Girls hating guy who think the My Little Pony IDW comics are supposed to aim for an older audience. His name is anonycat. He said it on Andy Price Deviant page. Why would he think that? The IDW My Little Pony comic are not aimed at older readers. It is for children of all ages just like the cartoon. Can you do something about it? What should I do?184.20.209.241 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?
He has also added some canned condemnation from the first discussions unrelated to my second effort at History of Virginia on stamps, which includes both Arago and Wallenstein commentary on the Constitutional Ratification Convention -- beyond mere description of the colonial Capitol building pictured, an analytical critique of the meaning behind the commemorative stamp itself. Your input is appreciated, even if it does not favor my position.
I guess the first order of business is, where does the RfC belong? Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for a change in policy/guideline so that should be on the appropriate talk page.
Critical commentary should be about the image of the stamp, not the object depicted on the stamp or the routine details of the stamps commissioning. It should be commentary that requires the stamp to be seen to be understood, or whereunderstanding is impossible without the image. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were mentioned on Jimbo Wales talk page
In case you were unaware I felt inclined to let you know an editor brought you up in a complaint on Jimbo Wales talk page in regards to a non free image dispute about Kim Jong-un.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, as I have mentioned before I have held you in the highest respect. However, you have continued to personally attack me for holding an opinion that disagrees with yours. I have begged you to stop on several occasions. Most recently, I begged you to file a complaint against me at an appropriate notice board, and failing that to stop making your personal attacks against me. I have advised you of the policy on this. Despite all of this, you have once again accused me of disruption. I do not want to escalate this, but you are leaving me no choice. I would rather we settle this amicably. I respect that you disagree with my opinion. Please grant me the same courtesy, and stop making accusations of me disrupting anything. That's all you have to do; stop making the accusations. Please. If I have in fact disrupted anything, you know where to report it. Continually making the accusations without reporting it is a nebulous in between state that serves no purpose other than to belittle me. Either stop making the personal attacks or make a report. Continuing as you have is just continuing to personally attack me. It cannot continue. I invite your well reasoned opinions in our debates. I do not invite the continuance of these personal insults. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to attack you, and I do apologize for that; but you need to be aware that your "new" passive-aggressive stance (the "I've tried it but too many ppl ignore/attack NFC, so what does it matter?") is extremely harmful to any serious discussions on resolving NFC issues. It is (has been) your choice to decide to forego any NFC enforcement, but you can't say "well, no one else wants to enforce it, it's futile, let's just ditch it", and expect that people can understand your reasons behind that in a non-passive/aggressive/sarcastic manner. If you feel serious that we should ditch NFC, then nominate it for deletion or propose fixed changes to match what you think is practice now. But otherwise, as Jheald points out in this reply to you [5], NFC still works. It may not work as you wanted it to, but that's the balance here. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dialogue and debate in and of itself is not harmful. The weight of my opinions vs. the weight of yours; it is how we progress. Regardless, my point in addressing you here is to get the personal attacks to stop. The issue of NFCC is entirely separate and has nothing to do with the personal attacks you have been leveling at me. I remind you, again, of
WP:WIAPA bullet point #5; "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." You can debate with me without making accusations about me and/or my behavior. There are plenty of people who disagree with your opinion, and there is nothing wrong with that; where things err is when they attack you. I brought this up to one of your opponents and asked him to stop. Similarly, it's fine for you to debate me. Attack my points all you like; no problem. It's not fine for you to attack me. I hope this is the end of the personal attacks. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I promise I will stay far away from that in discussions from now on (or whack me on the head if I don't), I would just ask you consider that there are people still fighting the good fight for NFC even if we are few and far between now. You don't have to be doing NFC work or agree with it, but it's not fair to say we've all given up hope. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I need a second opinion on File:Winme gold 18.png. It appears to me that the image itself is potentially free. The CD sleeve itself, IMHO, does not pass the threshold of originality as it is text and logos that all can be found on Commons. If there is indeed a copyright associated with it, it is the photography value. What do you think?
Assuming the Windows logo and the ME wordmark are free, the only copyrightable aspect is that photographic gleam that the reflective nature of the disc has and would be copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask for the permission from the original author, if I knew his username... only the revision history says the first uploader is 718 Bot. This can't be correct, right?
718 Bot is a image reduction bot, and it uploaded a reduced and PNG of the original gif image that was used. On the gif image, the language "my own camera" (which persists in the rationale language despite the intermediate uploads). is User:Wikinger, but that image they uploaded does not appear to be the same (in any way) as the present image. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who uploaded the current image then? Codename Lisa (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:㍐ appears to be the user that last updated the image in 2009, but they did not update the rationale. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the irony! Instead of uploading it to Commons, I must nominate it for speedy deletion for lack of source and
lack of contextual significance
because for all I know, this could have come from anywhere on the web.
Thanks for the assistance. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree deletion is right, though it should be possible to get a free image of the same type by a WPian following through through on the right steps to photograph and license the image with clear ownership to avoid this in the future. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Masem. Thanks for the excellent sources on Beatles: Rock band. I've written a first draft of the relevant note, but I wonder if you could help me make it more Pepper–centric, as its too general as it is now. Any thoughts on content specific to the album? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEMO
I knew that WP:DEMOCRACY redirected there, and I thought that WP:DEMO existed too... but then I saw the redlink when I tried to link it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polarization (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) 08:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The My Little Pony Comics
There a guy that think that the IDW My Little Pony are not for kids but for teens and adults. He made this edit on TV Tropes on the YMMV My Little Pony: Friend is Magic IDW Page. His name is DrakeClawfang. Here what he wrote.Pandering to the Base: The comics are obviously aimed at the older brony fandom than the kid audience the show is intended for. The stories are darker and more mature, as well as featuring elements the fandom loves over the Slice of Life plots of the show, references to death are not uncommon, and there are many nods to the fans in the background scenery. Masem can you remove this? Just because it a bit darker does not mean it not for kids. When did they ever made reference death? The Comics are aimed at children of all ages just like the show not teens and adults.184.20.209.241 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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
Orphaned non-free image File:Humble indie bundle v promo art.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading
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
Hi Masem, as you shared your thoughts in the last FAC, I thought you might like to know that I have opened a new FAC for Proteus (video game). It would be great to hear your opinion on the article again. Sam Walton (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar
In regards to "rm isle vista killings boldly - its not the type of story that ongoing was made for", I just wanted to say that it is precisely the situation that ongoing was proposed for. That is, times when we have a high turnover and as such a story quickly drops off ITN while it is still at the top of the news. I'm fine with its removal, but wanted you to be clear there is no requirement for a story to literally be ongoing to appear on "ongoing" for future reference. Rather, the only requirements are the story still be in the news with new developments and the article still be updated regularly. That was the case here, although obviously it wasn't go to stay on ongoing for very long as developments will be limited; had it stayed on ITN the normal 4-5 days, I wouldn't have considered putting it on "ongoing". --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Steam mac 1984 homage.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading
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
talk page for the subject. Thanks! 98.70.72.87 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
updated ;-) (not meant to "clutter" your talk page, just want to be sure you're aware of new comments that I added) 98.70.74.244 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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) 08:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit maybe?
I've recently taken to expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Puzzle & Dragons. If you have the time, do you think you could take a stab at copy editing the gameplay section? What's up there now is like a 3rd draft after I attempted to restructure everything based on how the Japanese article is laid out. Also, I want to try to come up with a way to convert this list I compiled into a proper list article. Any suggestions would be great.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started on taking a stab at it but because I've also started to play Dragon Coins, I know I'm starting to mess up details between the two games. But, reading through it, the current text gets far into the weeds. First, assume that while a popular game, this isn't Pokemon and that details like monster names or the like aren't going to be of interest. I'd also prelude the section with described that there's two levels of game here (the monster collection, and the puzzle side), and then start with the monster side, as that will make it easier to explain the team concept, leaders, friends, and skills as they apply in the puzzle side. If you can trim down, I can likely take a more reasonable stab at it. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two sides of the game are intertwined in a way that made it somewhat difficult to split up the discussion in the first place. As I stated, I attempted to follow the layout of the Japanese article, although converting a lot to prose instead of their lists of bits of information. I'll do another rewrite within an hour or so and null edit here when I'm done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been replaying it a bit so that I can try to tackle trimming it down to core details, but give me a few days. I'm pretty confident it can be shorter. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you hit some minor inaccuracies when you did the trim. Also, I still think a list of monsters can be done in some form.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and fix those, I was just trying to trim down to what we'd generally consider the most important for a WP game article. I know there are a lot more mechanics involved in the monster evolution side, but the fact that they can be evolved by consuming money and goal, for example, is the more critical detail here. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grim Fandango
Hi there, I see you added the following line to the Wikipedia page: "In addition to his own developers, Schafer reached out to players who had created unofficial patches and graphical improvements on the original game, and gained their help to improve the game's assets for the remake." As someone involved in the projects you've mentioned, I wanted to know what your source is for it. Nobody I've spoken to has been contacted by Tim Schafer. Thanks. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The video in one of the links (I think the PS blog), produced by 2Player proudctions at DF HQ's says this. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's at the 11:50 mark at the video here [6] but I did clarify that that is their intention, they might not have done it yet. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Masem,
I appreciate your message on m talk page. However BFI has been used for country orders a long time in Wikepedia history.
Films that you might know include:
X men: First Class
X men: Days of Future Past
Batman Begins (Buy others not just me)
and MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more!!!
Country orders are not always organized by who contributed the most. However UK is the primary contributor in THE DARK KNIGHT and INCEPTION.
I'll prove it-
The Dark Knight:
Syncopy inc. - UK
Christopher Nolan - UK
Emma Thomas - UK
Jonathan Nolan - UK
Christian Bale UK
Michael Caine - UK
Gary Oldman - UK
Filmed in UK includes London.
Also BRITISH-AMERICAN has long been the label of UK/USA or USA/UK (If your fussy). Inception, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises have all been BRITISH-AMERICAN since their creations. Nobody (especially me) is suggesting UK has done nearly all the work compared to the USA. Instead they are about equal.
Lumiere is a PROJECT as seen on the websites page. It is not as trusted and widely used as BFI.
I would say yes unless there was a better venue (likely at commons) if that crosses the line or not - the fact the two Zs are different suggests there is some originality into it. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roguelike, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isometric (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) 08:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For efficient use of the admin-mop to clean up the well-intentioned move debacle at Dragon's Lair. -- McDoobAU93 13:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Shawshank Redemption
Hie. You reverted my edits on the Shawshank redemption with the reason "reception is mentioned above"; but is isn't! In fact, the parts related to reception, are also mentioned in the legacy part. (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. excuse me for my bad using of words; I'm a very amateur English speaker.
"Reception" we generally consider as what people say as the movie is out and released, and that stuff is presently covered in the "Critical response" section (which could be called Reception). In "Legacy" we consider what the film is perceived as after some time, in this case the AFI lists and the like. There's a distinction there that we typically make. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I used to think that legacy is for the film's effects on next ages and reception means film's achievements in lists and critics. anyway, it isn't a very big matter. (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of The Writing's on the Wall (OK Go song)
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
I believe this image may be free. The geometry of the graph is not protected by the copyright but its data is.
Since you can see past deleted versions before being brutally downsized to nothing, could you please analyze and see if its data comes from the author himself?
(talk page stalker) There is a logo in the top right corner that is copyright, even if nothing else is. The image also contains potentially identifying information about the uploader; I'm not sure the uploader is aware of this. You can only see it in the larger images. This is a crop from a screenshot showing the uploader's winnings over time for tournaments. If you want, I can send you a copy of the original files. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's not enough information in the graph (from a previous version of that same graph) to tell whose data it is (the player name is ID'd as EIT007), and given that the uploader uses the rational "from my computer" they are freely admitting this might be their information. I would argue that as long as that is non-free, the image is unnecessary since it is just a plot of winnings won against tourney, something easily described in text and not described in the article as to its importance. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the open tabs on the original upload, it might give you a bit more information about the uploader & source of data. TLSuda (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For purposes of discussion, here is the original image; [7]. It is clearly a shot from Tony's computer (based on task bar). The user names are a random selection of players on some poker network, so the current shot which limits it to one user is less a problem. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the large version. Cropping out Windows Vista and everything outside the chart area, IMHO, the logo watermark is {{
PD-logo}}. (There is something in the O which I can't quite make out; I'd that'd make it de minimis.) The chart and EIT007 are too random to possess authorship
The logo is not PD-textlogo, due to what is in the "O" of Poker, and it would not be de minimus here as that would show this being their software (I am assuming the software embeds that on the graph for such purposes.) "EIT007" I'd hope is Tony's user name. Again, this being likely non-free , I beg the question of the relevancy of the image - it is a graph of winnings verses tourney number, which is well explained via text as a feature of the software (if it has relevancy to the general anaylsis of poker players, then a more generic version can be used elsewhere). --MASEM (t) 04:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Shawshank Redemption- Critical Response. Your ownership behaviour and repeated reverting.
The second edit (which you undid for a 2nd consecutive time rather than discuss) keeps the reference to the praise you insist must be there, but correctly does not call it critical acclaim since it is not from a film critic. If you had read before undoing you would have seen this. It is a statement from a non-expert and non-critic.
The term is "existentialism" not extensionalism.
Your second revert has been undone, as explained above.
The brief amount of time it takes you to leap on edits you dislike suggests to me
Wikipedia editors resolve their disputes through a procedure known as Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, better known as BRD. I advise you to take the issue over to the talk page immediately, introduce it in a neutral tone and focus on the contribution only, instead of the contributor. I promise you: you will be surprised how pleasantly the problem will be resolved as a result of doing so. I assure you, Masem is one of our most friendly editors. Most of the times he assents to a pleasant compromise.
May I try an interpretation on NFC by USPS first suggested by Wehwalt, and an additional query? According to Wehwalt's reasoning, The general claim to stamp copyright would not apply if it were not specifically asserted for each stamp within five years of publication.
The USPS does not typically assert its copyright at a stamp publication — such as at the official First Day of Issue sight for Petersburg and Mobile Bay issues July 30, 2014 Civil War Sesquicentennial 2014 stamps. If each stamp is not registered within five years, such as it has failed to do at USPS Virginia Rotunda, a June 4, 1979 issue, is the [University of] Virginia Rotunda stamp not free use for WP at History of Virginia on stamps as of June 4, 1984?
Is that something I can assume for stamps from online sources in your view?
Relative to my interest in Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, which I see Google places first hit on a search of 'American Civil War on stamps', --- I notice stamps after 1978 pictured at American Association for the History of Nursing for Civil War personalities in 1986 and 1995 for Harriet Tubman, Phoebe Pember and Sojourner Truth. Gwhillickers and others have presumed that the USPS blanket permission for educational use would apply to Wikipedia.
Are the AAHN and WP situations for publication of USPS images comparable in your view? Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This won't work for stamps after 1989, as one does not need to file a copyright from that point out to assert copyright. For stamps prior, you would have to verify that the stamp is not registered in the copyright database within those 5 years; if you can show that there is no registration, then the stamp is certainly going to be in the public domain, but you'll have to make sure to try variations to see what can be found. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt's point was that there was a burden on USPS to assert a copyright symbol in association with publication of a given stamp. If nothing were done in five years, it would be public domain --- so variations might include finding hard copies of the First Day of Issue notices. But online the out-of-date First Day of Issue notice is abbreviated to a statement that it is not currently on sale, so that is no help. Thanks anyway. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dante's Peak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia. 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) 08:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversal of my edit
Hi. I disagree with your revert [8] of my edit on the Steam page. In my view, GOG.com is not a service like Steam or Desura (where one has to download a game through a client to play), so it should not be included in the "See also" section. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to download the GOG-version of a game bought on GOG to play, but once installed you don't need GOG. But this is also true for Desure-based games - once installed you don't need to launch the game via Desura. The key is that Steam, Desura, GOG, UPlay, and Origin all have the same concepts of digital download game storefronts. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for that insight. I don't keep up a whole lot on the gaming front and wasn't aware of Desura and UPlay. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to see what I can do. I think you may also need to do the members of Team Meat (SMB is an FA, but the two devs are start-class) for the full topic. But I agree that that's a reasonably good topic. Someone might beg if
independent game development should be on that, but I'd sweep that under the rug until someone says it should be there. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic show? I like ponies and stuff about the article! I know you're helping out on Wikipedia! :) --AllenTalk 16:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
WARNER one and have since reincarnated myself to be more friendly, useful, cooperative, less nationalistic and all together a better editor. I have identified you as one of the editors that I have wronged in the past which is why I urge you not to consider my previous actions in the future as I am completely different. I would like to be friends so we can hopefully collaborate in the future. If you understandably still don't want to colabarte and/or see my new side then that is 100% fine. Just please leave me a note here so I know for the future. THANKYOU! --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, well I tried. Thank You anyway. Warner REBORN (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Word Crimes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expresso. 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) 08:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a reduced-color image (the way the "o"s are filled in on the title bar) - but I'm sure sure how else it might be a problem - can you make sure what you think is wrong? --MASEM (t) 15:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please zoom to 100% and look at the title bar: A circular brush is used to change the color of the title bar which was originally orange to bright green. But it is done very carelessly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, okay, that I did see, and now I see how this is affecting the text in the title bar. This screenshot should be removed and replaced with one that lacks such modifications. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that. In Windows, the background window's title bar cannot be the same color as the foreground window. Plus parts of the users interface is also smeared.
I'm uploading a new screenshot right now. Please feel free to remove the photoshopped one. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, can I just say that, while I don't really agree with your reading of my comments, that full protection did turn out to be unnecessary? Maybe the worst is over, maybe admins and experienced editors did a good job on the talk page, maybe lots of people were better behaved than I thought they would be. So, in that way you were certainly correct. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History of video game consoles (seventh generation)
The latest worldwide total sales for the xbox 360 was announced on June 9th, 2014, at E3 as shown by the very first citation [161]. Don't change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.239.84 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking input, Edge Games
Hi Masem. Sorry to lean on you like I always do... Looking for an uninvolved party to glance at Talk:Edge Games. There's a lot to see... For over a month it's been really busy due to a SPA who wants to address "POV" issues. I'm wondering what policies might come into effect here. The SPA denies any COI, but they have no other edits and single mindly put their efforts towards cleansing the article in favor of the subject (Edge Games/Langdell). I feel like I'm trapped replying to the article because if no one replies, the SPA declares a consensus and prepares to make edits that from my view point worsen the article's POV issues. -- ferret (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second everything ferret has said. Except for his/her use of "glance"; you can glance at Talk:Edge Games in pretty much the same way you can glance at The Complete Works of Tolkein. The SPA has been challenged at least twice on the issue of COI, they have stated clearly that they have no connection, although with the cleansing of the article and the fact their user name is similar to the article title (Vertisis - which is a common mis-spelling of vertices, vertices is the plural of Vertex and a Vertex is an edge) its hard to know what to do, ferret, czar and myself have played this as fair as possible, but its just getting the article nowhere. - X201 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Masem, I am wondering if you might help here with the Edge Games article. First, though, I just noticed X201 elaborate analysis of what my user name means! That is quite some stretch. Needless to say he has the derivation of my user name entirely wrong. It's based on the word 'vert' meaning green. When you visited the Edge Games article it sounds like you had the same reaction I did originally, namely that it reads like someone was trying to paint Edge Games and its CEO Langdell in a bad light. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles. While not an interested party, I felt this was wrong and have been trying for months now to get Ferrett and X201 (and Czar) to agree on a more NPOV edit that doesn't read like it is just trying to make Edge look bad. When I tried to remove some of the more provocative quotes (the ones I think you were reacting to?) both Ferret and X201 stopped me saying I could not remove anything, I could only add further to give a more balanced view. But when I added more aiming to make it more balanced, they objected because they apparently felt the new balanced edit didnt make Edge sound as 'bad'. Whereas you and I seem to feel the new edit (in Draft) is still too much like the existing live article in that it still reads like someone is trying to make Edge/Langdell look bad. They finally agreed to look at a total rewrite and asked me to do a list/timeline. But even though I've done it they are now not contributing at all. So, are we stalemated? Or can I take their lack of response as effective consensus? Or ...what do you suggest?Vertisis (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They finally agreed to look at a total rewrite and asked me to do a list/timeline." No we didn't, that's a total twisting of what happened. I said I was thinking about starting again from a list, ferret agreed with the idea and Vertisis took it upon him/herself to do it. - X201 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not misrepresent things. Objections were not about making Edge sound "as bad". It's about not filling the section with flowery prose that proclaims Langdell's innocence against the Evils of EA over and over. Your bulleted list is almost the same as the draft edits, crouched in the same type of language, relying on primary sources to make points about EA and original research about the final orders in the case, such as proclaimations of Langdell's innocence, etc. You ignore and toss aside reliable sources that don't agree with the whitewashing you've been after. All of that aside though, I've simply been too busy to really dive into it right now. I suspect this will be a case where you'll succeed in your efforts because everyone dissenting got tired. -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a better middle line, but, for example, this addition [9] particularly the last part, is written to clearly try to remove the white-wash that IGDA put on Landrell. Yes, we need to explain he was found in a court of law not guilty, but the IGDA membership pull still exists and we can't bury that fact. A question to consider is if others discussed the IGDA's decision in a negative light, which might be difficult to find given how the games industry has very little love for Landrell and the Edge name dispute. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence has been inserted in multiple places during all this drafting. I'm still not happy that it went into the article, as Langdell was never on trial for such, and therefore was never found "not guilty" of anything. That sentence is a near direct paraphrase of a quote from Langdell himself. It's a gross twisting of typical settlement text where the party's involved "admit no wrongdoing" and such. -- ferret (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I think it sounds fishy and a way to try to wash some of the implications on Landrall. NPOV means we try to cover all viewpoints fairly but with respect to how they are covered in sources, but if there's a minority or non-existance of sources that try to paint Landrall in a positive light, we can't invent that side. We can quote him to understand his side of the picture, but that's pretty much it. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I would appreciate if you could look over this again and review the draft I have just made at the draft page. Please see this section on the talk page. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the use of non free snippets on the user space that has absolutely no reason to be there and is not a part of any reasoning or discussion be reported to
User:NewsAndEventsGuy does not seem to understand the principle of non free content and has posted a non free snippet from the book Spock's World by Diane Duane[10], copyright 1989 at the top of their talk page.[11] I mentioned this as an example of the issues I keep finding and that I have engaged directly with the editor over but they believe I am harassing them.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Text is not covered to teh same degree as images or other media under NFC, but instead is covered by what the CC-BY-type license would consider appropriate as fair use. That said, if it would be inappropriate in mainspace, it would certainly be inappropriate in userspace. Looking at that quote, that's probably okay to have, as long as that's the only quote from that work that is being used on that page. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will let them know that my concern has been heard and that it is "probably okay". I will use the that wording.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, this is going to get heated before it's over; however, it is not personal at any level. I have nothing but the highest respect for you, and for the work you have done regarding WP:NOTABILITY, but you have taken an ill-considered turn down the wrong alley with regard to your proposed reinterpretation of NCOLLATH. That having been said, I do not want this to degenerate into anything other than a civil debate on the merits, and I hope you recognize that, and will do your best to keep it on that level. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checking through those, I don't believe they are appropriate, failing to meet NFCC#8. Photos of the live performances or the studio aspects are not going to be significant to album/song albums, unless there is something critically discussed about the photo or the methods used in the studio. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NGRIDIRON vs. GNG
Masem, I invite your participation in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalmers Tschappat. This AfD presents a potential test of the limits of the presumption extended by NGRIDIRON, especially in the face of a demonstrable inability to satisfy GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Your expertise is solicited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for placing the discussion tag on the AfD. I didn't think about doing that, but I figured the main page was getting too "polluted" so it would be best to have the discussion about the policy merits on the talk page. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the side discussion might be important so I want to make sure existence of it was highlighted for other commenters/closing admins. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's pretty well distracted me most of the afternoon from the draft article I am working on. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really happy regarding how this AfD was closed. In my assessment, this is a problematic closing (see my inquiry of the closing admin here). I thought this AfD was a good policy-based discussion that was prematurely cut short by the closing admin, at a time the !vote was evenly divided. Am I wrong? It's not worth pursuing any sort of a DRV, but I feel this was handled in a rather high-handed manner. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given his responses, a DRV is appropriate. I will back you up on the fact that while the idea that was the basis of this AFD has been discussed at length at NSPORTS (that NSPORTS is a presumption, not a guarentee) but this is a limited case of actual practice of how that's supposed to happen, it's not trying to create policy at AFD. And 3-3 !vote coming out as keep w/ no explanation is bogus (at worst, no consensus to delete is a much fairer response). --MASEM (t) 13:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you've been doing this several years longer than I have, and as an administrator . . . . Was my invitation at the top of this section inappropriate "canvassing" per WP:CANVASSING? I'm fairly sensitive to canvassing issues because I've been on the receiving end of it. . . . I think two exceptions applied to your participation (expertise, prior participation), and you were appropriately open about being invited to participate. It's not like I went at this with an agenda, other than to clarify the SNG/GNG guidelines as applied to the article subject. "High-handedness" and selective interpretation is what I see here. Not sure if the DRV is worth pursuing, and might be seen as pointy. What's the remedy? Reopen the AfD? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DRV isn't pointy if you feel that the closer didn't follow process (You just can't use DRV as "AFD#2"), which I believe this is the case. I don't think you canvassed per what you pointed out at the talk page, that I've been involved in the notability aspects for a long while that its fair to call an expert on the guideline in to help, but if you do take it to DRV, that might be a point raised. If you don't feel you want to raise the DRV, I can, as I really think the closer completely missed the point on how SNG/GNG have been designed to operation which was established before the AFD. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably better positioned to raise the DRV than I am. I also raised the canvassing issue on the WP:CANVASSING talk page and requested input/guidance. We'll see if anyone actually responds; a lot of similar procedural policy talk pages don't attract a lot of regular comment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got ahead and opened it. Note that I do put out there about the possible mis-steps of you asking me, and the talk page move, in case that's an issue to be as fair as possible. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out too that SpinningSpark said my moving the "side discussion" to the talk page was inappropriate. What is your opinion on my moving it, Masem? I felt that the policy discussion was taking away from the actual deletion discussion, so I thought
it would be better to have that discussion on the talk page. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I wouldn't recommend it in the future, but I don't think it "broke" anything in the process as long as the existence of that was highlighted in the discussion (eg the note I added). --MASEM (t) 19:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited "Weird Al" Yankovic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mandatory Fun may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
and_Young_1970.JPG|thumb|left|"Mission Statement" emulates the style of Crosby, Stills & Nash (pictured above, along with [[Neil Young]] in 1970.]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
If you really doubt my abilities as an editor or think I don't know how to condense and improve flow I suggest you note the changes I've already made in User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick.... I'll be working on it there over the next few weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Quikview.png
Hi.
Apparently,
QuickView
and is deleted because of not having a fair-use rationale. If that's the only problem, I can write one for it, if it is undeleted.
@Codename Lisa: I've restored it, but have it tagged with a delayed deletion, but that should give you time to add the rationale.--MASEM (t) 05:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Williams, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Will Wright and Spore (video game). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precious
games
Thank you, addicted professional gamer, for quality articles such as
Hey. I could use some help from an admin. I have an angry SPA vandal account that is now vandalizing my talk page: diff. The user's recent insertion of intentionally incorrect information into several American football articles speaks for itself, as does his comment on his user talk page. Anything you can do would be appreciated. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your immediate problem is taken care of (blocked) but judging by the fresh account that first edited your page, there might be more problems to come. If there's a hint of more, you definitely should ping
WP:AN/I pointing to what is effectively a death threat and that should help clear it up. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
ANI appropriate?
Hi, Masem. Am wondering if it would it be appropriate at this point to take either/both HiLo or Slave to AN/I for incivility or personal attacks based on how this [12] talk page thread has evolved? Or should we wait to see how the situation further evolves? -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 01:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know HiLo48 is not a stranger to being discussed at ANI with similar type of behavior and has one outstanding editing restriction on them (but it's an IBAN not involving anyone on this Williams page). Personally, if they drop it now, I'm not going to worry, but if they keep pushing the issue, then that's something. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is they drop it immediately. Sadly, HiLo hasn't seemed to learn from his previous restriction and Slave is stupidly following HiLo's lead. It was clear HiLo was gunning for a fight when he came back with his "By the way" reopening of the argument today. Dumb move on his part. Which is why I tried to diffuse it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to let it drop last night, only replying when accusations of COI came up. I'm holding my piece on the latest statements and if they don't seem to get the point, then that might be ANI though I suspect RFC/U would be the recommended action. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the internal link
Hi Masem, for
this article was supposed to be undeleted. What I have to remember you is you're helping me with the articles. --Allentalk 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
I see this "First of all, I know WP policies and guidelines (and the MoS) far better than you do, having actually assisted in the prosecution of an editor through the entire ADR and ArbCom process to a permanent ban...." In addition to this "I sincerely hope for your sake that you are not deliberately trolling (i.e., taking obviously unreasonable positions) just for the sick thrill of getting a rise out of other editors. That, I assure you, will get you banned from all Wikimedia Foundation projects in short order. Permanently." as a legal threat. The editor writing it is a lawyer. The exchange is found here: [13]. Thoughts? -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite a legal threat (threatening to get someone banned is not "legal"), but it is commentary that should be avoided and should be cautioned against. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting |this| close to going to a noticeboard (whichever one would be appropriate) in regard to Slave. He's in this to stir the pot, in my opinion. He has admitted to enjoying debate. Fostering a desire for debate and engaging in same just for the sake of debate isn't what talk pages are designed for. That, plus the borderline legal threats and misrepresentations, are completely unproductive and disruptive. As always, I'm interested in your opinion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all of the challenging and griping, it occurred to me that Slave seems to be more interested in debating and being right and talking about how things need to be changed in Wikipedia rather than actually working toward building an encyclopedia. His edit count and statistics say it all: [14]. Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen a user who's been in Wikipedia less than two months with only 10% article edits and 84% talk page edits. Other than a vandal. And You may take that as you will. I just don't see how his presence is productive or even meeting the heart of the 5 Pillars. My feeling is he's here to experiment on us, toy with us, find entertainment with us. In other words, an internet troll. Whatever his purpose, I think we can say he's definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. Have you ever seen the like? If so, can anything be done? One more thought - take this comment from his user page and see if what you think it means is what I think it means: "This will be my one year research project." I'd be very interested in your comments and thoughts on this. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actions are suspiciously similar to how a sockpuppet works but I have zero evidence or idea of whom the sock might be of, and until then I have to assume good faith. Persistent and tenacious, yes, but save for edging on legal threats, it's just a matter of avoiding edit wars. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppets I've dealt with don't spend time at talk pages and only edit 10% of their time at articles, so I'm unfamiliar with whatever kind of sock this guy might be. Even so, he's wasting the community's time, he's wasting bandwidth, and he's only stirring the pot of disruption. Although not a typical vandalism-only account, because of the article-to-talk page ratio, it seems like a vandalism-only account to me. Especially with less than two-months editing time. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓ 00:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absent on Rainbow Rocks short
why did you erase the absence on rainbow rocks short? --66.69.70.111 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which character is present or absent from a short is trivial details not appropriate to an encyclopedia. It might be find for a wikia or for TV Tropes, but not here. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia it is. We look to what secondary sources say about a topic in summarizing it, and no one has talked about the absence of the characters in these shorts. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Hey, you got too many messages and bytes on your talk page and why don't you archive them also. I see that you're editing good and featured articles, so that's good while you're not an admin here! --Allentalk 06:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous issue | Index | Next issue 
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glossary of video game terms may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Facepalm. I was forced to learn hard and fast on the simple basics of image policy long ago; and I'm hoping that it becomes similarly clear in a quick way for GabeMc. Cheers :) Doc talk 04:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at 
ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
