Open main menu


Contents

The Signpost: 31 July 2019Edit

ITN recognition for Harold PrinceEdit

 On 2 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harold Prince, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 02:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed URL that duplicated unique identifierEdit

Hi, I just noticed your revert. I think you may be interested in User_talk:Citation_bot#"Removed_URL_that_duplicated_unique_identifier". Nemo 17:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the alerts; I truly apologize for being so aggressive in my editing and will make every effort to pace myself. Sc2353 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Stranger Things season 3Edit

I noticed you reverted my edit citing word count. This is the first I'm hearing about a word count limit, so this question is out of ignorance - is the word count limit for an individual episode, or for the entire page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnometal (talkcontribs)

It's per episode on a list like this, 200 words. See MOS:TV. --Masem (t) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Stan Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to KCAL
Video game controversies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kevin McCarthy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces TreatyEdit

 On 7 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 01:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

HelpEdit

DYK bot failed to update the Main Page today. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stan Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KCAL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Using caps in titlesEdit

I'm very interested in your views on CAPS. There is a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 and other such boats here on the very subject of using caps in the title of a work. It's talking about Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, and later an Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant. I've put this here rather than at the pump, to retain some focus there. Broichmore (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ernie ColónEdit

 On 15 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ernie Colón, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Tennessee Colleges of Applied Technology Logo.pngEdit

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at the non-free use of this particular file. It's currently being used in five articles: Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Shelbyville, Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Pulaski, Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Crump, Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Chattanooga and Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Newbern. It has a rationale for one of these uses and sort-of-quasi rationales for the other four. Normally, I think a logo such as this would be OK if used in a parent article like Tennessee College of Applied Technology, but not really OK for use in individual articles about child entities (i.e. individual campuses) per WP:NFC#UUI17; however, as you can see, the file isn't being used in the "parent" article, which is pretty much just a list article without any real content. Looking at the official websites of each campus (except the one website which seems to no longer exist), the logo can be seen being used with the campus name being added like shown here. Techincially, I guess those would be considered child-entity specific logos, but they are essentially the same logo with just a different campus name, which means WP:NFCC#3 might come into play. So, bascially it seems to be a question of using one non-free file six times or six non-free files one time each. Do you think the current usage is OK per WP:NFCCP? Any suggestions on what should be down if not? Upload the individual logos and move the file to the parent article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If the logo were non-free, yes, the usage is wrong - the single use on the parent article would be only appropriate. But I want to say this may be PD-textlogo (the logo is relatively simple) so this could be a free image. --Masem (t) 05:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. Yes, it might be possible for this to be PD-logo per c:COM:TOO United States. If the parent logo is PD though, then the individual child articles should also be PD for the same reason, right? Now, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the file needs to be non-free. You seem to be suggesting that it should be only used in the parent article. Would it then be acceptable in your opinion to upload the individual child logos as non-free for use in the individual child entity articles? It seems that the number of non-free uses would be the same regardless of whether one file is used six times or six files are used one time each, but obviously six files means more non-free files being hosted. The copyrightable elements of the logo would be the same so basically it would be like uploading the same file six times. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
If the child entities are just adding their location to the existing NFC logo as simple text under the logo, then I would still think that you'd only need the parent logo, and none of the child ones. If somehow the name was integrated into the parent logo in a more artistic way, that would be different. --Masem (t) 14:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of "disruption"!Edit

I made a comment, not an edit. I didn't "disrupt" anything except your fragile ego and your obstinate refusal to admit that "impacts" is a crap word that should be discouraged here. There are many appropriate, accurate and grammatically correct alternatives to this neologism, some of which I listed in my comment. You'll probably delete this comment, but you won't prevent me from replacing "impacts" wherever I see it. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Stanley KubrickEdit

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Matrix 4Edit

So as to avoid another Akira situation, I have created a draft for the upcoming 4th Matrix here, should any additions you want to add in or if you want to reshape how it looks. Rusted AutoParts 20:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's one I was not at all planning to start. Just not enough information from even the 2017 -onward rumors for a sufficiently long article. --Masem (t) 20:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It’s there though if you wish to help with it. Another thing, is the David Mitchell that’s co-writing David Robert Mitchell like linked in the section or is it the author David Mitchell who wrote Cloud Atlas that The Wachowskis directed a film of? Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Variety's article didn't go into enough depth but I picked the one that seems to be a screenwriter and in film, rather than the one that does more traditional lit. --Masem (t) 21:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it is the novelist. [1] That Mitchell worked with Hemon on Sense8 which is also Wachowskis...--Masem (t) 21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for updating WP:IUPEdit

I think it is very out of date, and duplicates or is duplicated by other content. Tony May (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Violence and video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin McCarthy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019Edit

Disambiguation link notification for August 31Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Control (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray tracing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

New discussionEdit

Hi, there is a new discussion on Talk:List of most-liked YouTube videos, if you're interested and you want to leave a comment you are welcome--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for complaint reviewEdit

Hey. Would you be able to assist me with a complaint? Another admin recommended I take it to ANI but I'm uncomfortable with doing that. I want to speak to an individual admin about a long-term experienced editor. And I need them to take action against that editor if they deem necessary. Can you review my complaint, preferably privately? If you decline, could you please refer me to another administrator? Best. 69.9.33.228 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If the issue is related to personal information, privacy or the like, you should look to WP:RFO to have that dealt with in private channels. Otherwise, there's nothing really "private" about it, and ANI is unfortunately the best place to put such a complaint. (I'm guessing by lack of contributions this is related to a different account or IP). --Masem (t) 14:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, too bad you don't want to handle it. I hope you have some admin friends who do. 69.9.33.228 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Bahamas Humanitarian CrisisEdit

Based on this, I think we may have a reason for ongoing now. NoahTalk 04:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: I agree that situation needs potential ongoing. My suggestion- the next potential blurb will be the Indian spacecraft. When that goes up - pushing Dorian down to be knocked off, reopen a new ongoing discussion focusing on the devastation in the Bahamas as well as anything in the US (but it looks like the US got relatively lucky?) as the point of why ongoing is appropriate. --Masem (t) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: Now you should post to ask for Dorian to go to ongoing with the Bahamas sourcing you might have. --Masem (t) 15:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I put both the main and effects article there since Dorian will hit Canada today. NoahTalk 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Matt Thorson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Masochism
Video game clone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Homage

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chandrayaan-2Edit

 On 7 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chandrayaan-2, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You are wrongEdit

Hello

Microsoft created the Xbox Game Studios the first one was called Microsoft Games started on 2000 (can you read all in internet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Read the instructions of {{Infobox company}}. Owner= should only be filled if the company (in the infobox) is a privately owned company and another major entity has some equity ownership in it. Parent= should be used when the company is wholly owned by another. Xbox Game Studio is currently a division of MS, so it is clearly owned by MS, and thus we use "parent" here. --Masem (t) 21:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIE_Worldwide_Studios look — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 21:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

One wrong does not make other wrongs right. Masem linked to the guidelines so you can check the out yourself. I cleaned up the SIE WWS infobox to better fit the guidelines. Lordtobi () 20:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MCQ questionEdit

Hi Masem. I added on to your answer at WP:MCQ#Question about two already-in-use images that were disallowed on other pages. because I felt there was more to things than just getting the bot to stop removing the files. If any of what I posted was incorrect, please feel free to point it out. One thing I noticed about when looking at the WTNI article was that an IP simply moved File:WTNI 1640TheChamp logo.png to the image gallery from the infobox (most likely due to the change in the station's branding) without taking into account that the file was licensed as {{Non-free logo}}. I removed the non-free former logo from the gallery, but am now wondering whether it cannot simply be converted to {{PD-logo}} instead. If it can, I will re-add the file to the article; if not, we'll I don't think it can be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's too simple for US ToO, it can be PD text logo. --Masem (t) 00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I converted the license and re-added the file to the article, though I’m not sure whether a two-image gallery of basically the same logo really needs a stand-alone section, even if the files are PD. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Karbala stampedeEdit

 On 11 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Karbala stampede, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 04:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

k2-18bEdit

You changed the source of a statement in the k2-18b article to a different source which says something different and not what the statement says so I've reverted your change. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC) These two papers out today both say they've detected water but other than that they disagree. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check to see if both should be used. --Masem (t) 22:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You also removed the free-access source, replacing it with nature.com source which is behind paywall - a bad practice. I reverted, but please take caution.--Trurle (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we should be using the peer-reviewed published version via cite journal, but that also holds an arxiv parameter to link to the pre-print so that both are available. --Masem (t) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health FA nomEdit

Hello! I was wondering if considering your interest in the topic area with video game addiction, if you could consider taking a look at the review for this article that I nominated. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I will definitely look, but ping in a few days, after what I see are pretty extensive comments to address first :) --Masem (t) 16:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

An interested IP followed me homeEdit

Masem, I think this IP seems to be a sock editor or at least an editor trying to EVADE. There edits haven't been helpful and mostly seem to target me. [[2]] Springee (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing anything immediate. Mainspace edits while an issue are using RSes. Need more data points before I think it is reasonable to take action, but let me say that the trend is towards a block. --Masem (t) 16:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The IP is back and this time calling other editors racist. [[3]] I believe this IP is related to both 6years as well as a second IP address. 6years and this IP are both editing this article (as well as the ones where I've been hounded).[[4]] The other IP, from the same location as the new one stopped editing literally minutes before 6Years's established their account. [[5]] I have some additional evidence and I'm looking to do an SPI but I need a bit of time to put it together. Springee (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that accusing other editors of misogynist attacks is CIVIL. [[6]] Springee (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The more recent IP comments are of concern, but as for any connect to 6Years, that needs a lot more data. I'll warn the IP at this point as that's crossing the line. --Masem (t) 15:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with regards to 6years and sock editing. The IP continues to harass [[7]] and attack others [[8]]. Springee (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
There's so far only one edit of concern after the caution I left and other edits fall into AGF type. Not dismissing the potential sock but I can't really do much else with the broom responsibly here yet, but will periodically check on contributions if they keep it up. --Masem (t) 16:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The editor restored this bad faith accusation [[9]]. The claim is groundless and presented without evidence. Since I don't have a redit account even if they included a link there would be nothing to it. Is this sufficient for a NOTHERE block? Springee (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Eddie MoneyEdit

 On 14 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eddie Money, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 03:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matt Thorson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masochism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral noticeEdit

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The Ngo problemEdit

Hey, coming to you here just to point out that the exchange you saw on WP:NPOV/N is why I've opposed including Ngo's view. Springee has evinced a very particlular set of criteria for what is allowable. Anything they perceive to have a POV that is critical of Ngo is a "tabloid." What they have asked for isn't your proposal for a contextualized view of Ngo's statement but rather a denial. "Other people call him conservative but he says he's center-right" full stop. As such, I wanted to let you know that I do find your suggestion reasonable and appropriate, and if Springee will agree to allow that sources that criticize Ngo are not necessarily tabloids I'd be happy to support it. However considering that Springee's response to my line of questioning was to log off and walk away, I have my doubts. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, from everything I've read, Ngo's article in a proper BLP/NPOV is going to be generally negative because of the media's criticism of him, which cannot be avoided, so whitewashing cannot be done. But we still can talk to the criticism and remain impartial which is just where I'm trying to see it from. (as well as the fact tha the ABOUTSELF question has arise from several different unrelated cases with inconsistent application). --Masem (t) 13:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you played the Ghostbusters Video Game?Edit

I'm trying to make sense of the ending for the article's plot section but I'm struggling. It might be the result of cut content and the two different versions, but the end level dictates that Shandor needs a blood sacrifice and the ghost energy to become a Supreme Destructor, but he becomes a Destructor without sacrificing Ilyssa. I can't tell if there is meant to be a difference between his Destructor Form and a Supreme Destructor since he seems to have the same powers regardless. It's not super important but I'm struggling to make the plot make sense. I don't want to OMIT he needs a blood sacrifice but at the same time it doesn't seem to have an actual pay off. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Been way too long to be able to know without replaying. Try looking for Let's Plays of it? Even a Wikia page may help. --Masem (t) 16:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm watching videos of it but it doesn't seem to make sense, that's why I'm stuck. At the start of the final level Ray says a blood sacrifice is needed, Shandor then says he needs his own blood to become Supreme Destructor but then immediately fights the Ghostbusters. There's never any blood involved. I'm guessing its just a goof. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Brony convention typeEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BronyCon&type=revision&diff=916368400&oldid=916349480

In response to your edit summary here, I'd like to contend that BronyCon was still by and large only one of many fan conventions, including GalaCon and Everfree Northwest targeted to fans of the My Little Pony franchise. The first sentence of the article even says "BronyCon was an annual fan convention held on the east coast of the United States for fans of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic animated television show, among them adult and teenage fans who call themselves bronies." I do not believe it should be a multi-genre convention, as it had no specific focus on other genres, such as anime, video games or comics, unless they were tied to the My Little Pony franchise. I believe that Brony conventions should be there own genre. --DeathTrain (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Except, there's gaming, there's panels on other related shows, etc. Perhaps it can be first a brony convention, but it definitely had multi-genre elements as a secondary one, so I wouldn't exclude that to favor calling the genre "brony". --Masem (t) 18:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
However, the vast majority of special guests, panels and gaming were still largely related to the My Little Pony franchise.
For example:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgtl42pkTdDsAYX4cNh4ZzzKAamLFRwpR
When they played Rock Band, they often played My Little Pony songs, official or fanmade. On what other shows were there panels related to? Even if there were of elements of other genres of conventions, other conventions such as those exclusively categorized as anime, furry or gaming conventions also often have elements of other genres of conventions. DeathTrain (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing that "Brony" could be added, but the con also had elements of other cons (furry, sci-fi, etc.) So "Brony, multi-genre" is a fair scriptor. The one thing to consider is looking around at other show-focused cons is what "genre" is used there. There's no consistency to follow through with, but multiple genres is allowed. --Masem (t) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Alright, so if more Brony conventions had their own Wikipedia page like GalaCon, Everfree Northwest, TrotCon, Equestria LA, or BABSCon, would it then be appropriate for "Brony" to be the only genre? DeathTrain (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I can only also speak to Everfree, but that would be the same boat, it may be first a brony convention but it has additional activities beyond that that additionally qualify it as "multi-genre". And when you look down a list like List of science fiction conventions and check the show specific ones, if they aren't just "Science fiction" they include the show name as the genre. So technically, this would be "MLPFIM, multi-genre", not really "brony". --Masem (t) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
What about the point about other conventions that have activities beyond that of their genre? Otakon has a gaming hall. And remember, there are both "Brony" conventions and so-called "all-generations" MLP conventions like My Little Pony Fair. I believe that there is a significant difference between the two. DeathTrain (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I still disagree, but I see where you are coming from. If you want to change it to that, go ahead and I won't revert. --Masem (t) 19:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thank you. DeathTrain (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clean Air Act (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Wheeler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for saying thisEdit

Hats off for this comment [[10]]. Your thought police concerns mirrored my own. Springee (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
For your work on articles on controversial/political video game topics. You seem to like the space and do a good job considering how difficult writing about those topics can be. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Question to OwnerEdit

Hello

can you say me who is the owner of the gaming companies? MS or XGS? Jicco123 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The individual studios like Double Fine or Rare are owned by XGS, which itself is owned by Microsoft, in that corporate structure. --Masem (t) 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So XGS owns Double and Rare? And MS the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Any of the current studios listed on Xbox Game Studios (not just Double Fine and Rare) are directly owned by XGS in the corporate structure: they report to XGS' management, not MS's management. XGS itself is owned by Microsoft. --Masem (t) 20:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know so what I dont unterstand in your XGS articel shows all gaming studios with "Acquired"

so but the acquisitions of MS shows that they have owns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft owns everything that XGS owns, since they also own wholly own XGS. For all purposes, when XGS acquires a studio, MS is effectively acquiring that studio. That list List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft is covering all of the acquisitions MS has made over all of its divisions. --Masem (t) 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay

MS is owner and XGS is parent right? MS owns the studios but MS postponed the studios in his own division XGS? Is that right? Have I understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically yes. In terms of the monetary/financial value, MS is the owner. In terms of the corporate structure and who answers to who, XGS is the parent. --Masem (t) 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In the XGS article the initiative has no notes I can write the head with source would that be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Jicco, your English is completely incomprehensible, which clearly goes against our competence guidelines. Furthermore, you refuse to sign or indent your comments on talk pages, even after being told so on multiple Wikimedia projects. Pleaase consider editing the German Wikipedia instead. 219.241.21.115 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Er, Jicco's language is clear enough to try to answer. Yes, they may get clearer answers on de.wiki but I think what they asked here is fine. Poor english use on talk pages is NOT part of what CIR is covering. --Masem (t) 23:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  For your contribution to 2I/Borisov. Thank you very much!
Hashar (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Impeachment inquiry against Donald TrumpEdit

 On 26 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you give me credit as well? I want to remember this one. Cheers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Shuping WangEdit

 On 27 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shuping Wang, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BARNSTAR!!Edit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Borderlands 3, sales figures dataEdit

Not familiar with wikipedia policy; figured as you added it, this would be an appropriate place to ask. The gamasutra article referenced only cites a publisher's account, and doesn't disclose terms. The only thing I can actually find a source from; off Gamasutra is a businesswire article, which I feel is much better written. It's the source from gamasutra article.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190923005321/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.40.184 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

Thank youEdit

Thank you for deleting duplicate reference on Shuping Wang, I just didn't notice her publication in the bottom section "Further reading". PoetVeches (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

MSRP in articlesEdit

Hi Masem. Thanks for your comments at WP:NOT. Concerning your comment about the acceptability of MSRP [11]: What level of consensus is there for this? are you aware of any substantial discussions, RfCs, etc on this? --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no awareness at project-wide level, only that practice shows acceptance for reasonably limited MSRP of base products when the base products are significant subject of discussion for their own article. I know in the video games project we have discussed to what level of detail pricing should be covered in hardware but that's isolated from rest of project. If you feel this may be something of contention, maybe a RFC to confirm or reject practice? But I mean, is there a boat being tipped here? (The question at NOT is of a few extreme cases). --Masem (t) 19:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
is there a boat being tipped here? That's why I started the discussion, to get a better idea if that's the case. The responses suggest so, as some editors are treating these "extreme cases" as anything but.
Putting aside issues of notability and clearly due weight for specific articles...
I can see how standardized pricing, like MSRP (or other stable valuations), could be considered an attribute of encyclopedic and historical worth. If there's wide consensus for this, then WP:NOT needs to be changed. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
One could argue that here the "and a justified reason for the mention" in the current version would include the general practice that MSRP is justified for notable products, but again, that's not codified in any RFC or the like, so if you feel this needs to be added, you can start an RFC there. --Masem (t) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John Kirby (attorney)Edit

 On 5 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Kirby (attorney), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fortnite Battle Royale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CBC
My Little Pony (IDW Publishing) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dark Horse

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

your revertEdit

I disagree with your opinion that "No date is really needed here" [12]. A date would help very much. Perhaps you need to read the section more closely. There is no sense of how long any of this took, or of when the script was actually written. I have just noticed another edit that's needed in that section, and am fixing that and also reinstating the "where?" tag, as a date would help clarify things very much. Kind regards, --Philologia 09:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

UbisoftEdit

Hello,

I did not delete it, I just created a "professional overview"

Jicco123 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a whole separate article that is a detailed coverage of the studios, so the table that was there to start was the professional overview to give the idea of the where and when for each. That table format is common for the large publisher articles. --Masem (t) 14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay I unterstand I'll undo it for a moment to get the source code — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

New wikipedia user. You have deleted my edit in error.Edit

I am a new user so I'm not sure where to put this. On your page? On the article page? On the edit log ? I have no clue.

Your rationale for deleting my edit to the page for "procedural generation" was in error. You said "these are just random events and not procedural". This is false. I specifically cited not just events but branching trees of generation - terrain, inhabitants, treasure . Please revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles999JF (talkcontribs) 16:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not clear that is procedural generation and in such as case, you need to provide a source to affirm that is the case. --Masem (t) 16:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN for En EsurEdit

Hi Masem, I just made an article for En Esur, a large Bronze Age settlement whose existence and excavation was announced yesterday. There's been a lot of news coverage and that seems to be expanding [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Do you think this could be a candidate for "In the News," or do you think that's unlikely? -Darouet (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My gut - it cannot hurt to try ITN, but if that does not get legs, DYK is a clear logical place. But its getting news coverage so it doesn't fail any immediate ITN tests I can think of outside of academic reliability on the 5000-yr age estimate. --Masem (t) 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
OK — thanks! As far as I can "Tel," there's no new publication out on the site (perhaps forthcoming), so the "5,000" date is just what media have repeated from the archaeological press release given on Facebook. The date will probably be fairly well constrained by linking artifacts to other sites, before any chemistry is involved.
Would I place that "ITN" template at the top of the article itself, or in the appropriate ITN candidate location? -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
There should be instructions at the ITN pages about how to nominate the article. I don't remember them off hand but they do start by creating a template for the DYK nomination, and later adding a template to the article talk page to draw attention there. --Masem (t) 17:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Masem I added a few more sources and made the nomination [23]. We'll see what people say! There's a lot going on in the world so understandable if people choose not to post. -Darouet (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
And it went up! -Darouet (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. Please comment on content, not contributors.Edit

I directly addressed your inappropriate remarks that you posted here, but for the sake of formality this is your talk page warning.

Please stop casting aspersions. I shouldn't have to remind you that Arbitration Committee has ruled that "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation" and "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors'conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page." It is also unacceptable to make serious accusations without evidence. Accusations of WP:POINTy behavior are quite serious and can easily result in blocks and bans. If you want to make such an accusation, please do so on an appropriate noticeboard and cite your evidence there.

I can't explain your bizarre behavior excerpt perhaps you think you WP:OWN the page Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. I suggest you take a more welcoming attitude towards editors, even those you consider of lesser rank or importance than yourself, who wish to discuss the merits of a policy change. Your insular attitude suggests a lack of confidence in the policies you defend, and some kind of insecurity in your status. I'm not here to question your status. I just think the crystal ball policy is defective, and I'm seeking consensus from other editors in a civil, orderly process.

I've come to precisely the correct place to discuss my concern with the policy. I have followed formal structures to gauge consensus on the change I'm requesting. You accuse me of "pointy" behavior, yet I'm doing exactly what the WP:POINT page says I should do. It says don't try to enforce a perverse interpretation of a rule you don't like. Instead, go to the policy talk page and propose a change. Well, here I am. On the policy talk page. And yet you attack me? No. Unacceptable.

Please comment on content, not contributors. I see no reason why you can't argue against a change in the policy without having to resort to personal attacks and aspersions on me personally. I suggest you try harder to assume good faith, and focus on facts rather than personalities. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't addressed anything about you, only the nature of how you are approaching the discussion that is mixing up how the consensus/dispute resolution policy is done, and which is not helping to resolve the issue. That is not aspirations, see WP:NPA. On the other hand, statements like "From the evidence I see at WP:FA, the best editors simply ignore this dumb policy. It's the ones who aren't royalty and rockstars who suffer and have to argue out from under this nonsense." are the type of comments that are aspirations - not actionable but still harsh - and set a tone for how people are going to reply to you. I see the same, non-actionable but edge case behavior at the talk page for BMW M3, just at the edge of ridiculing other editors. That approach doesn't make friends in these type of discussions, and as I read your language, implies a harsh tone towards anyone wanting to keep it in there. I and the other editors trying to approach that RFC from how we handle NOT which is not meant to be changed at the drop of a hat, and when changes are made, they are carefully considered. We're not hear to help result the BMW M3 content issue for you, only to resolve the apparent contradiction in NOT that's been identified. I will still caution that even with the sentence removed, that is not going to change how the current consensus direction on the BMW M3 is going, because we're not change NOT to read "rumors must be included", only that they can be, but that still leaves it to consensus to be added. So I will caution that while this is a good change to try to make to NOT, it is not going to end up getting you where you think you want on the BMW page. --Masem (t) 06:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Another aboutself question for youEdit

So I've got another aboutself question and wanted to see what you think. The PragerU article references a Mother Jones article that offers a very short summary of several PU videos. The MJ article links to the videos it summarizes. Is it a violation of ABOUTSELF for the Wiki article to do the same? I'm really on the fence here. I personally think the summaries offered by MJ are misleading/overly simplified to the point of distorting the message [[24]]. Another editor added links to the videos in the article [[25]]. So now we have several things in play.

  • Were the summaries accurate to the video content?
  • Does ABOUTSOURCE apply here or is this unduly promotional?
  • Does the link in the source article give weight to linking in the Wiki article?

In my opinion, this becomes an interesting ABOUTSELF boundary case. The videos are clearly promotional since PragerU exists to get it's message out. Thus it's unlike using the NRA's statements on red flag laws to explain why the NRA opposes a red flag law. Thus in general I can see the unduly promotional concern. However, what if the summaries are inaccurate (ranging from clearly false to arguably based on semantics)? If the summary is clearly false I'm assuming we would just remove from the article. What if the summaries are in the gray area (this is my opinion regarding the actual PragerU RSN question)? Do we say if the claims are included the videos can also be included? Would we the editors be allowed to summaries those videos? I don't like the idea of just including citations without really referencing them in the text? Finally, is this a case where the unduly promotional should override the ABOUTSELF aspect? I'm interested in your thoughts since you seem to have a clear vision about this issue. Springee (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the only reason thing to be done is to attribute the short video descriptions to the MJ article, as the MJ article is clearly biased in how it is treating PragerU, and unless there are other similar descriptions, should not just let one source be factually summarizing this. That at least takes out the potentially misleading summaries out of WP voice and encourages a reader who is interested to check the videos for themselves. I don't know enough about the Prager situation that if the video themselves are reasonable to include as potentially an {{external media}} box. --Masem (t) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts, that was really quite helpful. I hope you don't mind that I ask these questions. I find you do a nice job of avoiding saying yes or no but instead suggesting an alternative way to look at the problem/question. Springee (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
For your creation of and significant expansion upon the section "Hearthstone ban and Hong Kong protests" in Blizzard Entertainment. The section is well-formatted, well-cited, fairly neutral, and quite extensive. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

In the NewsEdit

  The E=mc² Barnstar
For your work updating the 2019 Nobel Laureates’ biographies. Jehochman Talk 02:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


ITN recognition for William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. SemenzaEdit

 On 9 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier QuelozEdit

 On 9 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira YoshinoEdit

 On 10 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are into closing GARsEdit

can you close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Parkala Massacre/1 ? Saw your name at the task-force page .... WBGconverse 12:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh, wrong link:-( WBGconverse 03:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Olga Tokarczuk and Peter HandkeEdit

 On 11 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles Olga Tokarczuk and Peter Handke, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 18:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
October
 
... with thanks from QAI

I found the recognition on my talk and want to share, because credit and thanks for improving Olga Tokarczuk go mostly to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo AccountEdit

Hello, I am requesting Nintendo Account to be added to the online services section of the Nintendo Switch page. One can not access Nintendo eShop, MyNintendo or Nintendo Switch Online without logging into Nintendo Account first. Nintendo Account should be listed as the online service similar to PlayStation's PSN. Coolyfett (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Account pre-dates the Switch, so makes no sense to add it there. --Masem (t) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q3Edit

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 2 — 3nd Quarter, 2019
  Previous issue | Index | Next issue  

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2019, the project has:


Content


To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

ABOUTSELF change processEdit

Masem, I was hoping you might offer some suggestions. Based on the ABOUTSELF discussion I made a BOLD change to the WP:V (not something I would do lightly) ‎https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=921489521&oldid=921488255. The change was rejected and I'm waiting for some additional information as to why. It is certainly possible that my insertion was clumsy and needs more refinement. Do you have any suggestions for how to go about doing this and where I might get some additional editor input. I would like this change to be driven or rejected by a clear consensus rather than just a few editors. Thanks! Springee (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the page of Mei (Overwatch) and protect the pageEdit

Dear sir,

       The Hong Kong protest is still ongoing, and some people has changed Mei's birthplace from Xi'an, China to Hong Kong, along with other things that doesn't follow the settings of Overwatch. Can you please correct the page of Mei constructively and permanently protect the page?
       Thank you. Unknown123Known (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Masem".