Open main menu

Contents

Not sure if this ping went throughEdit

I never know if changing the spelling of a ping'ed name tries to ping it again or if that's a one shot thing. Anyway, I pinged you here! [[1]] Springee (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A question?Edit

What do you think of last nights episode of TWD? The Optimistic One (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

An edit was made to the Nintendo Switch article, and a list I added underneath the Nintendo Switch Online section including a list of NES Games (with cites) was removed. I was just wondering if you removed it by chance? I'm not mad, just curious! Thanks! :) CreeperDudeBro (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

How are you so good at editing? I’m new too. Lotsoflolzandbloxs (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:What comes after screenshot.jpgEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Camp fireEdit

OK. It's been basically ready for six hours, though. Sca (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it took 15 hours for posting. At least it's out there. Death toll of 25 likely to rise. Sca (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ECEdit

Not sure what cased that edit conflict at VPPOL. About once every 3-4 months of active editing I have MediaWiki's edit-conflict processing stuff fail, and either clobber some posts, or appear to save mine but not actually do so. Has been happening for years, and I have never been able to isolate it to specific conditions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

thank youEdit

thank you for nomination in the news[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Masem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User-created non-free collage/montageEdit

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at File talk:2018 Asian Games Shooting Skeet and Trap.png#Deletion? I'm asking you since you previously offered some opinions on non-free collages/montages at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#User-created montages using non-free images. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

John Bain articleEdit

You have TWICE reverted my edit, which only says EXACTLY what the cited source [Forbes] says. Zoe Quinn made the DMCA request, and Youtube determined it was not valid and restored the video. The cite even links to the evidence here: http://archive.fo/UqAwg

John Bain addressed the matter ONLY because of the false DMCA claim, as he stated on twitlonger. Why do you want readers to think differently?

Restore my edit.

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that I realize that a Forbes contributor article was being used, we do not consider those reliable sources. The point, however, is not to to try to judge who was right or wrong in terms of the takedown, but that Bain spoke up about it and was criticized for speaking up, hence how he got involved with GG. Whether that was right or wrong is not within WP's purview to determine. --Masem (t) 20:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OtherSide Entertainment Logo.pngEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018Edit

The Messenger (upcoming video game) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Messenger (upcoming video game). Since you had some involvement with the The Messenger (upcoming video game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent Toy Story 4 editEdit

Thank you for undoing my recent edit in the article for Toy Story 4. After looking at the previous version, it is far superior than mine. I was just trying to find a way to say that the character will be in the movie, especially since he is featured in the teaser, despite Rickles passing away. However, I should have just left it the way it was. And1987 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson articleEdit

Is there any particular reason you undid my edit just now? If so, you need to list it in your edit summary. Treybien, talk 20:31 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I did so, see the talk page for Tyson - we have been discussing whether to add those allegations or not for some time and there's no cconsensus to add at this point. --Masem (t) 04:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Net neutrality in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

RevdelEdit

Can anyone revdel the first edit made to User talk:213.162.124.186? Apparently, the image added to it is NSFW... -198.111.211.2 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cindy Hyde-SmithEdit

Do you think this edit is a fair reading of the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive27? I will start an RFC next, but that honestly seems like a waste of time for such an obviously bad and biased edit. But if people are going to keep re-adding this and not agree on noticeboard consensus, the RFC may make sense. This place sometimes. Jesus. Marquardtika (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I still think it's coat-racking without explaining from an RS why being a segregated school is important but it's not worth trying to get a fuss about. It's another piece of evidence to add to a growing problem on WP with focusing far too much on the court of public opinion in the short term rather than long-term importance. --Masem (t) 06:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
And removing it is another piece of evidence of ongoing censorship. It is clearly relevant material, notworthy, and well-sourced that CHS sent her daughter to a seg academy, and that's what the consensus was at BLP.Jacona (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
But there's nothing in WP's article to explain why its relevant, even though I am sure that there are sources to explain why it is. You don't drop random facts that coatrack issues not discussed in an article without sourcing to explain why they are relevant. That info seemed to be there in the sources, but no one has added it properly and where it matters or belongs. --Masem (t) 14:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I haven't done it, initially in respect for the process at BLP, and because I am extremely busy elsewhere at the moment. Either someone will find the time or I'll get to it sooner or later, it's not a rush, is it? BTW, it did not at all appear to be consensus that this is a coatrack issue, that was really just one editor, wasn't it? Why don't you give it a shot, if you have the time, including the information appropriately and adding the necessary connection to eliminate your coatrack concerns? Jacona (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion at BLPN got sidetracked into discussion about whether it should be noted that Hyde-Smith went to a segregation academy. However, that wasn't the question I posed. I was specifically inquiring about the daughter. The daughter's schooling is mentioned incidentally in the original piece, and several sources piggybacking off of the original piece in turn mentioned it. But there's no evidence that details of the non-notable daughter's schooling are of encyclopedic value to the article about the mother. No one at BLPN made a case for this; people were mostly talking about the mother's school attendance. This is really just a disgusting attempt to smear a kid who surely didn't choose where to go to school. Pathetic. Increasingly it seems like people who don't get their way electorally try to get a modicum of satisfaction by turning their partisan energies to Wikipedia. Marquardtika (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
And that's why dropping that link in her personal life section is a coatrack. There was an issue that journalists saw Hyde-Smith's school and her choice of where to send her daughter to school as reflecting on her political views, which she denied. That should all be self-contained in a political position section or in the article on the election, not scattered about randomly particularly in personal life details. --Masem (t) 15:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Different people looking at the same thing and seeing something entirely differently. What others see, and it appears to be the majority view at BLP/N, is an attempt to use various obtuse arguments to suborn policy and whitewash/censor significant, reliably sourced material about the subject of the article. Jacona (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The question wasn't about including the information, but not adding it in a section that appropriately discusses its connection/importance to Hyde-Smith's political positions. Someone on the talk page gave a reasonable paragraph that summarized the information as long as it was placed in a political section of her bio, not scattered in personal life issues. --Masem (t) 19:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Raw fury games logo.png listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raw fury games logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Willy1018 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15Edit

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

Epic Games Store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tim Sweeney
Steam (software) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tim Sweeney

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

CATAN: There have also been several unauthorized video game implementations of Settlers. One of these, "Java Settlers", was developed by Robert S. Thomas as part of his PhD research at Northwestern University. His dissertation is available from the abandoned project home page.[26] The source code for Thomas' Settlers of Catan implementation along with the AI code was released under the GNU General Public License.

You said not to add non official versions but there are other non official versions like this. Either remove that too or I'm adding back the other ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esqarrouth (talkcontribs) 19:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you please give an opinion into the appropriate part of the Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals section for easier evaluation? ResultingConstant (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for 1993 congressional hearings on video gamesEdit

 On 19 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1993 congressional hearings on video games, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that sales of the video game Night Trap were initially boosted following the 1993 US congressional hearings on video game content ratings because it was one of the games under discussion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1993 congressional hearings on video games. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1993 congressional hearings on video games), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry MerryEdit

  Happy Christmas!
Hello Masem,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 03:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of video games notable for negative reception, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You are invited to WikiProject YouTubeEdit

PlayStation Classic price cutEdit

Hi there. Isn't a 38% discount on the PlayStation Classic, during its month of release no less, a notable discount? If it were covered by a gaming news outlet, would it be fine to mention it on Wikipedia? --LABcrabs (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It would have to be more than just mentioning that it was on sale, but that it was a sign it wasn't selling or the like. --Masem (t) 03:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Labcrabs: now there are several articles talking the price cut across several vendors to make addition appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons cheerEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Masem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Signpost: 24 December 2018Edit

Star ControlEdit

Hey! I tried to fix the issues with the article and shift from primary sources to reliable third party sources. I'd appreciate another set of eyes. Feel free to re-add tags if you think I blew it. Could also use some help with the main series article, since I remember hating all the merge / split / move type of stuff. If you can get that going, I can keep going with the citation and clean-up. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

About adding the Philippine release dateEdit

With English being the Philippines' second official language, and this being the English Wikipedia, the film's release date in the country deserves to be mentioned alongside the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand ones (The latter three should also be mentioned in the article in an efficient way). This, of course, does not apply to the infobox, which should only mention the release date and distributor/s of the film in its original country (unless it has other notable premieres). LionFosset (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Binding of Isaac: RebirthEdit

Hello. I noticed you contributely substantially to this article. I'm here to tell you that I'm planning on nominating the article for GA and was hoping you'd be able to help me with the nomination in some way. Thanks!   Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Go right ahead, just ping me when you do send it to GAC so I can help there. The only thing I would wait on is when we get news of Repentance coming out as that will be the last major content for the article. --Masem (t) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my edits on the TF2 pageEdit

Hello, I noticed that my edits were removed from the TF2 page. Do you think that such content should have its own page? SimplyMashedPotatoes (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the undo of your edit in Candy Crush SagaEdit

I understand that it is an artile of Wikipedia and not a game guide, however, for any other game you see, like PUBG, Fortnite, etc., all these games have detailed explanation of their gameplays. In fact, many people use the Wikipedia article for the tutorial. So, I feel its worth mentioning about these basic, necessary things. Although I have excluded many like clearing of chocolate bars, or black chocolate bars, or function of fish, or colour bomb, or the continuation of the row where a lighted boundary is seen, auto-completiton of levels etc. I hope you get my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justlookingforthemoment (talkcontribs) 05:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

But the specific types of special candies and how you can make them or earn them is far beyond basic gameplay - we don't list out all the weapon types on other games, that would be the equivalent here. The gameplay in CC is much simpler than other games so respectively its section should be shorter. --Masem (t) 06:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Jackbox 5Edit

I don't want to go into an edit war, but it feels against the spirit of Wikipedia to censor information in light of overwhelming evidence. I also don't understand how time-stamped clips cannot be used as sources, especially when there are multiple examples that show a consistent trend of instability. We allow YouTube citations, so why should Twitch clips be any different? The bug is being demonstrated in real time; it's a smoking gun, and I've listed a plethora of examples. I literally did the research to prove it's a widespread and recurring issue. What sources are considered valid (if not these)? I listed first-hand sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmaster (talkcontribs)

We need the issue reported by reliable sources. We can't use first-hand sources like videos or forum posts. If reliable sources have not picked up on the issue, then we really have no place to discuss it. --Masem (t) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Internet phenomena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for BrexitEdit

 On 17 January 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brexit, 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) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN creditEdit

 On 17 January 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Laurent Gbagbo, 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ghostbusters 3Edit

@Masem: I am bringing this to your attention now. There is a discussion regarding the new film that is currently in development. The reverts you have exibited on the franchise page are in conflict with information released by the film studio. There is no basis for the fact that Ghostbusters 3 that has been in and out of development for years, was developed into Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. The film has persistently been stated to be a "passing of the torch" to a younger team, with The Hollywood Reporter just announcing that the new film will revolve around a teenage team. You cannot simply revert edits because they conflict with your outlook/opinion. This page is far to fan-page in style and requires major restructuring. Dealing with the new film and its status as the third film in the main series is step number one.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote and researched most of the stuff that is in the "dev of GB3" and yes, all those issues over trying to get a 3rd sequel with Murray involved all eventually led to them choosing to do a reboot to avoid the casting issue. Whatever happened from 1990 to 2013 has little impact on what the 2020 film will be. And while we know it is technically the second sequel, we have no idea if it is going to be numbered as GB 3 or named something else. We cannot use a YouTube video title as confirmation of a movie title, when there's 1.5 yr before relase and no source printed it. --Masem (t) 06:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: your comments lean towards WP:OWN-tendencies, in that you are assuming that your version is the correct version. I applaud your research though what you are stating is WP:OR and in conflict with WP guidelines. The condensing to the various paragraphs and sub-sections you had for a cancelled Ghostbusters 3 I summarized in leading paragraphs for the Ghostbusters 3 movie section. On top of this fact, most of that information is fit for a film article - not a franchise article. You cannot continue to state that the YouTube video -as released by the film studio- is not proof enough of the film's title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
All the stuff that deals with Hellbent, struggles with Murray, the death of Ramis, etc. is tied only to failed attempts to make a sequel to GB 2. There's no film article it can be attached to, but it is critical to the history of the franchise to understand why they went with a reboot. Now, I have no idea if the 2020 film is going to touch any of those scripts or not, but if it does, then we can see about relocated. (That said, the section about Hellbent etc is a bit too long from what I've originally had going into unnecessary details). And yes, on WP, we ignore the titles and headlines from material from RSes, because those may be made by someone that did not actually create the original work. IF it was to be called GB 3, Entertainment Weekly would said that. (Sources that do call it GB3 are using that title as a placeholder, eg [3]). --Masem (t) 07:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Stranger ThingsEdit

An article that you have been involved with (Stranger Things) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Stranger Things (season 1/2/3)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Stranger Things. Thank you. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean with the "can't use links to wikia." on Overwatch League?Edit

I did so much work on finding all the players who was participating in the League 2018. Can I write it somewhere somehow? Muikale (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Muikale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muikale (talkcontribs) 12:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Indigenous Peoples March IncidentEdit

Thanks for your edits and for your patience on 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident while one section is under construction. I am updating the section on the "Initial". The content was cut-and-pasted from the Indigenous Peoples March article I created and I am re-organizing the content to better suit a stand-alone article. It may seem unbalanced during the construction period. I am working on chronology etc. as well as changing the story based on RS that are constantly emerging.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I just updated the incident part, which trying to do that without any news commentary, only what phillips and direct people involved have stated. Also, looks like Congress is getting involved due to the 2020fight tweet, which might need its own section. --Masem (t) 19:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

DS scopeEdit

Masem, which respect to comment at AE, it looks like you were confused about the scope of the GMO case. It's called that in a shorthand, but the DS specifically apply to all pesticides, not just those used on GMOs. I'm up against the word limit there, so I can't really clarify it further than I did in my reply to Sandstein. If you look at the DS, it says: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. That has always included all pesticides and would need a new ArbCom case to change that to be only those used on GMOs. Here's one example of such an AE case.Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, just so it's clear, I'm not looking for a topic ban or anything like that far along, but more like something like a logged warning at the least on that battleground behavior, etc. (e.g., last sentence here) to try to nip that behavior in the bud now making it clear it's inappropriate in a DS area rather than let it get worse elsewhere. I don't know what you or others would want to do about the 1RR aspect, but that's as much as I prefer to discuss when not on the case page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
But even with that, there are natural pesticides, which could be broadly considered under pesticides. And further the edit was not about any specific chemical, just the class of pesticides in general. It's really stretching the meaning of the DS to make the edits fall within that. I agree that there's UNDUE on one study but that needs to be decided on the talk page. --Masem (t) 23:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Natural pesticides would be covered too when used as an agricultural pesticide (e.g., Bacillus_thuringiensis) rather than within a GMO. It doesn't need to be one single pesticide chemical or class, and that was extremely an extremely purposeful decision during the ArbCom case when the scope was determined to cover all pesticide topics rather than just the GMO subset. The broadly construed was included just to be even more on the safe side. At the time, there were two groups that got roped under the GMO case, problem editors in GMOs, and problems in pesticide topics in general as well as overlap between the two. The DS did help settle down the purely pesticide area of things more quickly than the GMO area for better or worse.
Of course that means in a case like this that 1RR wouldn't apply to all of the insect page, but it is when pesticides come up directly or as a main part of the sources at hand. If it were a different article about say a class of pesticides of just pesticide itself, the scope was intended to be extremely clear during the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Reading the original case, and why DS was created for that case, I am still not convinced that the edits in Insect come anywhere close to the subject area, even the modified one. It was statements about insect decline tied to human activities, including use of the broad class of pesticides (no specific products named), and little to do with the battling that GMO related articles were subject to at the time. If it was an edit on Pesticide, I would agree that that's a bit closer to the DS, but Insect is simply not "broadly related". It's arguably two steps away (GMO->pesticide; pesticide->insect), and that logic could lock a lot more topics out. --Masem (t) 00:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
including use of the broad class of pesticides (no specific products named) is what brought it within the DS content-wise (even just broadly construed if there was any question), but even if that were ignored, there's still the whole bit about me apparently being pro-pesticide, etc. as being some of the main rationale on the talk page for the battleground behavior. Assuming this wasn't within a pesticide topic for a bit, such an example would be like if I was editing at biological control that normally wouldn't be under the DS (excluding some biopesticide stuff), and someone claimed various pesticide aspersions towards me because I added content about a particular critter having problems for use with biological control, maybe for making a "competitor" of pesticides look bad.
Either way, ArbCom locked in that pesticide topics are broadly covered years ago. AE or individual opinion here cannot be used to change that, which is why I'm spending some time explaining this since we spent a lot of time crafting the DS to be broadly construed and not the opposite. Only ArbCom can remove the pesticide topics unrelated to GMOs. One arb did bring up that they weren't comfortable with how broad the pesticide topic can be at an amendment request, but other arbs decided to go ahead with it even considering that. There have been other clarification requests where the demarcation question has come up too, but the choice has always been to keep it broad in anything that requires discussing pesticides. What you've brought up before your last comment for the most part really isn't up for debate without an amendment to the broadly construed DS.
What is a valid question to ask though that you get towards is determining the degree in which pesticides are related to the content issue (ignoring the talk page behavior specifically calling it out this time). I did not want to delve into the content much because AE isn't meant for hashing out content disputes, but the central tenet of the study in question was that insect biomass was decreasing in this area (extrapolated by news sources to mean much more) and that agricultural use such as pesticide use was under the main reasoning for it by the source(s). Even if the last bit were removed from a piece of mainspace content, use of that particular source in statement in a WP:DUE fashion requires talk page discussion at the least if not actual content that includes part of the DS topic.
That means insect has portions of the article where DS inherently apply due to being germane to the content, and others where they do not (WP:TBAN's bullet 4 for how to deal with broadly construed). I'm not sure if it just took you by surprise that the topic reaches into articles like this, but this is far from the weirdest thing I've run into where DS applied with say America Politics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019Edit

Disambiguation link notification for February 1Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Collection No. 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dropbox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

OracleEdit

Please stop editing over me like this, it's made a mess of everything and I don't even know how to fix it. The article has to be understandable for people who aren't software developers, you are removing content in plain English and pushing development mumbo jumbo without even bothering to link it. Dalvik? Do you really think anyone cares about Dalvik? People will literally decide against something because they don't understand what you are saying, don't you think we should try to make the important parts of the article coherent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufAdnan (talkcontribs) 05:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That is what blue links are for, to provide additional information. We don't simply that far down. --Masem (t) 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Fine, but I was trying to add blue links for all that stuff when we edit conflicted and I lost the whole edit. The facts of the case have to go into the right section. Since it was the argument Google made during the case it needs to be discussed in the context of the case. There is no need to repeat it in the impact section, which is about the impact of the case (and by that I mean the ruling of the case, not the measures a company takes to comply with some legal requirements...) YusufAdnan (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind, many of those terms are already bluelinked in the previous prose, and we shouln't relink again per WP:OVERLINK. --Masem (t) 05:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok I'll tell you what, I'm going to read over the cases and read over the sections about the case before this dispute goes off the deep end. It seems like this OpenJDK argument was a critical part of the argument that Google made in court, but if I'm understanding the content in the article correctly it had no impact?YusufAdnan (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces TreatyEdit

 On 3 February 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The walking dead the final season cover.jpgEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-free use Five Nights at Freddy'sEdit

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at this article since (1) you're a member of WP:VG and have a good understanding of video game articles, and (2) you've also got lots of experience dealing with WP:NFCCP matters. Somebody just uploaded and added quite a large number of non-free files to the article (more than 20 it seems). While I understand that non-free screenshots are often used in articles about videogames, this seems to be rather excessive. The article is a GA and it's hard to imagine the addition of so many non free images not affecting that status. There were seven non-free files in the version which was GA reviewed; that might be a lot but it's certainly not close to almost 30 non-free files currently being used in the article. FWIW, not only screenshots, but also non-free cover art files were added, the latter which clearly fail WP:NFC#cite_note-3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Similar thing done at Five Nights at Freddy's 3 by same editor. It went from two non-free files to eight. Also, same thing at Five Nights at Freddy's 4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed them all. Nowhere close to a need to use that many non-frees on those games. I see that the editor does a lot of stuff with Beatles related articles that is questionable too. --Masem (t) 14:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
it looks like he put all the images back and ignored the advice.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) As a matter of personal preference, I don't think there are too many screenshots for the article. They are illustrative and help define/explain the subject better. But with that being said, fair use laws are quite clear that "minimal usage" is a factor, and the number of screenshots in the article is far from "minimal". I suspect this will not be difficult, as the editor in question seems to have made a compromise edit right after reverting the removal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • There's still far too many. We have to consider if each adds something significantly new, particularly on the series page. Screenshots of dark offices cumulatively don't help. --Masem (t) 17:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't review all of the added images. If many are functionally duplicates, then they should obviously be removed. And in all honesty, I think your reversion was the best approach in a legal considerations sense. I just wanted to point out that their counter-revert wasn't straightforward edit warring, though I'll make no predictions on whether that will come to be the case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the removal of some of the files covers should be considered much of a compromise since their non-free use in the article clearly didn't meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-3 (for the book covers); most of them were already being used in other more specific stand-alone articles and their non-free use clearly could not be justified in the main series/franchise article.
As for those screenshots which remain, generally a non-free image (e.g., box cover art, game logo) is allowed in the main infobox for primary identification puposes, and then one general gameplay screenshot is typically allowed to give the reader an idea of how the game looks/looked. Additional screenshots after that might be allowed, but they their non-free use tends to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#CS, and usually it's only when they might be needed in support of technical aspect of the game which is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Simply wanting to show how different parts or stages of the game looks in support of a plot summary would be like adding screenshots from movie/TV shows to plot sections of those types of articles; it's is pretty much a type of decorative non-free use that's not (at least in my opinion) allowed per WP:NFCCP. Trying to justify their non-free use by stating "Demonstration of office" again gives the impression that the usage is more decorative than contextual. Moreover, adding as many of these screenshots as were added in to not only this article, but other related articles only further reinforces (in my opinion) that the impression that the non-free use is mainly decorative.
A series/franchise article such as this where individual sections discuss indivudual releases, versions, episodes, etc. is almost like dealing with a WP:NFLIST type of article. If some these individual sections already have their own stand-alone articles like the ones in Five Nights at Freddy's#Spin offs or are Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone to be created, then the screenshots should probably be used in those types of articles instead; there's no need to repeat their usage in the main series/franchise article per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and even item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI since links/hatnotes can be used to direct the reader to the stand-alone articles where the screenshots can be seen. Similarly, if there are specific features or uses techniques (like Five Nights at Freddy's#Jump scares) which have their own stand-alone articles, then the same can be done for those as well if a screenshot is needed to truly understand the feature or technique per WP:FREER. One or two additional non-free screenshots might be justifiable in such cases, but not ten or more. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the removal of some of the files covers should be considered much of a compromise since their non-free use in the article clearly didn't meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-3 I never said it was a good compromise. I was merely commenting on the apparent motivation of them removing a number of the images. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Reversed edit on Loot boxEdit

Hey, this forum post I mentioned in my edit is the only source I've found regarding this law's impact on Nexon. That post was posted 2 days ago by an official CM from Nexon America and I thought it worth mentioning. Is there a specific rule against using forum posts? TheStriker (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ratatouille-remy-control-linguini.pngEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that editor removed the image, but I tend to agree with the removal per WP:FILMNFI. The screenshot is basically being used to illustrate a plot point which doesn't not seem to be necessary at all per WP:NFCC#8. Perhaps something about this particular screenshot (i.e. the animation technique used, etc.) which was discussed by an RS somewhere which would provide more of a context for non-free use; otherwise, it seems that this screenshot could easily be replaced by another screenshot of a different plot point, which kind of makes the use of any non-free screenshot in this section questionable at best. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Red Shell on CIV articleEdit

Hello. I have no opinion on the product in the article, except that the reference quoted clearly identifies it as spyware. Ifnord (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent revert to 2019 Overwatch League seasonEdit

The table is coded to allow easy updating, as the standings will need to be updated frequently. I suppose "cleaned" was not really the correct word to use. Pbroks13 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand you're trying to get each row on one line so that it can be easily moved and updated, but there is a ton of extra whitespace - there's 2.5k more characters which should clearly be less if you were doing this optimization. --Masem (t) 06:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not only the rows; it's the columns I wanted to align. I am not unsure how uncommon it is to do this, but I got the motivation to do so looking at the source code of Template:2018–19 NBA East standings. If you believe that the tables should be on a separate template page and transcluded into the main article, I'd be more than happy to do so. Pbroks13 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

OWL 2019 TablesEdit

Hey again. I've created new tables for OWL 2019, and I wanted your opinion on them before I put them in the article (I know, right after I tried to do the whole column/now alignment!). See them here. Thanks! Pbroks13 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think those would only work better after a stage is finalized, when the row titles are "fixed" The current format reflects that standings can change over the stage/season and shows who's in the hunt. --Masem (t) 19:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. I'll try to incorporate that better in the tables. To be honest, I think the current ones looks a bit shoddy, and I'd like to put in some that are more aesthetically pleasing, while adding more information. Pbroks13 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Review RequestEdit

Hi Masem,

Please excuse any potential canvassing, but I read your comments on the Mark Dice talk page, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the second AfD of the article about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Waugh, which I feel was the subject of a deliberate take-down by Wikipedia editing group "Art + Feminism" because my gender and race do not serve their quotas of representation on Wikipedia. The two most notable sources for the article in question had already been vetted in a previous AfD as having satisfied the notability requirement before the second AfD.

Thank you, Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewaugh (talkcontribs) 16:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Shin LimEdit

You omitted to mention Shin Lim's Chinese name, which I had included with each of my edits plus a source link for it. So you missed the point with your most recent edit. There was absolutely no valid reason or good faith from you to intentionally delete his Chinese name, unless you have some ulterior motives.2604:6000:D786:6C00:3DF7:791D:751C:69D4 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A random video on YouTube is not sufficient sourcing to say that that is canonically his Chinese name. --Masem (t) 19:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not a "random video", because it's a video from one of Shin Lim's TV appearances in China while he was on tour. Since you can accept a U.S. newspaper like USA Today to be a reliable source, then there's no reason for you to not accept Shin Lim's Chinese TV appearance to also be a reliable source. Instead of randomly calling this video a "random video" just because you were too lazy to read its english descriptions included underneath the video, you could have simply clicked "SHOW MORE" under the video to read for yourself on what it's about. Here's an excerpt from the aforementioned descriptions under that video: "On February 6th, Shin Lim Was Invited To The China Magic Show "Time For Miracles". Beside "The Amazing Magicians", This Show Is Considered Another Good Magic Show Of China. Coming To The Show, Shin Lim Brings "The Dream Act", The Act Made Him Become The Best Close-Up Card Magician In The World, To The Chinese People. Here Is His Performance At The Show." And at 0:04 of that video, Shin Lim's name written in original Chinese was clearly displayed on the screen next to the english spelling of "Shin Lim".2604:6000:D786:6C00:3DF7:791D:751C:69D4 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please review edit request at Zak SmithEdit

It's properly sourced, has support at talk and would allow us to comment on one of the few actually notable things about this guy. Please review. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ForbesEdit

We appear to use a fair number of refs by "Contributor" to Forbes. Should we be working to delete these generally? Does Forbes not provide fact checking etc?

We have ones like[4] here Bohemian Rhapsody (film). But also many potentially thousands more.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at a Forbes article and see "Contributor" this means there has been minimal editorial oversight that we'd require from an RS before its published (enough to make sure that the piece is not a pile of slander or nonsense, but not fact checking). So we are generally going to reject those as RS. They may still be used for opinions (RSOPINIONS), which does seem to be the case for the few used in that film article.
Forbes articles written by staff (like [5] where you see "Forbes staff") are presumed to have the usual rigor of editorial oversight to be considered reliable. --Masem (t) 02:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 91st Academy AwardsEdit

 On 25 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 91st Academy Awards, 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. Tone 17:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Walking DeadEdit

Hey Masem, just a head-ups for when you write the summaries for The Walking Dead: the character's name is Alden, as you keep writing "Aiden" (one of Deanna's sons in season 5). [6][7][8] Happy editing! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!Edit

  The Content Creativity Barnstar
Among many other contributions, I love how you wrote a good article about Kisor v. Wilkie the day after the Supreme Court granted cert.! It's such an important case--great to have it on the world's encyclopedia well before oral arguments. Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019Edit

Assistance with Edge (video game)Edit

Could you assist me with Edge (video game) Its currently under GA review and addressed most of the issues. the main concern I have is the reception section. I originally added scores and some quotes but that wasn't enough for GA status and had to be revised. I revised as much as I could but still need some assistance on it. I'd appreciate any help really. :) Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Linda mccartney with camera photograph.jpgEdit

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Requirements for edit to Markus Persson page?Edit

I noticed you reverted my edit on Markus Persson giving the reason "Not a reliabl source" First, I'm confused as to why you consider GameRevolution to be unreliable, given that it's (to my knowledge) a well-known, reliable source. Secondly, I'm not sure how the general reliability of the source matters in this context, considering the original tweet is still available, meaning there's no reason to doubt GameRevolution's brief account. If necessary, I could add two more sources, from inquisitr and metro, as additional citations, but I feel like I'm missing something about why this keeps getting removed, which is why I'm leaving this message. Sorry for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graxwell (talkcontribs) 02:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I am mistaken that Game Revolution as a RS - we do apparently treat it as one at WP:VG/S. That said, we're taking about a controversial claim based on a single tweet. WE need more than just "he tweeted this" that the GameRevolution articles has. If this turns out to be a major issue related to Notch's career, then we can consider adding it, but there's minimal coverage of this at this point, not enough to include per BLP. --Masem (t) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand that you don't believe one article is enough to quality that statement as notable. As I mentioned, I can give multiple other sources, with more content than the admittedly bare GameRevolution article. Would that fulfill your standards for coverage? Graxwell (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
How has this one tweet affected him? If it just a few people getting upset but not causing a controversy, it doesn't belong on WP. --Masem (t) 15:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit


For my own peace of mind...Edit

While I realize the following source may not be considered a RS, the author, Cathy Young, made some good points (closer to accurate than some news source reporting that it was a lawsuit): "Of course, just because the SPLC’s opinions are often issued and treated as statements of fact, that doesn’t mean that they are facts in a legal sense (as White has pointed out in a different context, just because some privately owned social media platforms present themselves as public spaces and often feel like public spaces doesn’t make them such legally). If Nawaz’s lawsuit had gone forward, the SPLC’s attorneys could have tried to argue that the Center’s list of “anti-Muslim extremists” was only an expression of opinion. But that would have required the SPLC to renounce any claim to special authority and expertise—and, in effect, to undermined its own raison d’être.

Perhaps that’s why SPLC leadership was willing to accept a settlement that amounted to a total capitulation. It is also possible that, as White speculates, they were worried that “discovery would have revealed ugly things about the SPLC’s process of writing such lists.” (Nawaz believes they may have taken their guidance from Muslim advocacy groups with an Islamist-leaning outlook.)"

I'm not going to speak to the merits of the case, just trying to distinguish that SPLC's analysis is the same type of analysis/opinion as what NewsOrg considers to be primary sources. I brought it here because I won't be commenting in that particular thread on RSN any further. Atsme✍🏻📧 20:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Image issuesEdit

Hello sorry to bother with you this. I commented on here and had not gotten a response. I am not sure if I posted this the right place, if not hopefully you can point me in the right direction. StaticVapor message me! 01:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, reported to ANI. StaticVapor message me! 02:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You Are Undoing Create Information In ArticlesEdit

User "Masem,' why are you deleting, "undoing," factual information from the article(s) about DJ Hero and giving credit to those who did not create the game by deleting it? For some reason, when I am just doing fact checking and updating, I get block from editing articles even though I am adding correct and useful information. Message me! I want to know why you are deleting content from the creator of the video game that the article is about, when I am trying to add it in for readers of the article(s). CKJohnson1 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

vandalize?Edit

I did not "vandalize" anything on Wiki. I started to update the page you are referring to when I google search my work I have done over the years to see what it has to say about it if anything and you call it vandalizing. Sorry Mister, but I have the copyright for that video game. You might not realize that I am the game creator and that I am trying to up date the article in a fashion that readers will be able to read it without confusion. CKJohnson1 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. I see no reliable sources to state that someone named "CK Johnson" created the video game DJ Hero. Yes, your link to a music album that claims CK Johnson goes by the alias DJ Hero is fine but that alias has zero connection to the video game as far as I can tell in reliable sources (no such name is listed in the credits. And if you are simply trying to protest that artist, that goes against the foundations of WP, including a major conflict of interest. --Masem (t) 02:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Get Out (board game) for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Get Out (board game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Out (board game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi Masem, it looks like you edited this page in 2007 (when you were newer to Wikipedia). Letting you know that I nominated for AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

DisambiguationEdit

Hello User:Masem, could you please let me know why you removed the disambiguation template from Memento (film)? From my understanding it can be used to drive the attention of readers to a similarly named article.--Joseph 13:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Those hatnotes are to help with searching. Because we already have the "film" part appended to the page name, and there are no other films named "Memento", there's no need to point to anywhere else. --Masem (t) 14:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thank you.--Joseph 15:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Irrational Games and Ghost Story Games wonky talk page splitEdit

Hey Masem, I noticed that your March 1, 2017 move which reverted GSG back to IG (in order to start a new GSG page) inadvertently split IG from its historical talk page because of a bot fixing a double redirect. Do you mind speedy deleting Talk:Irrational Games so Talk:Ghost Story Games can be moved there to restore the edit history to the correct matching? Then a new talk page can be made at Talk:Ghost Story Games. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Axem Titanium (talk · contribs) should be done. --Masem (t) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I think everything is sorted now. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Littman for deletionEdit

 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safrolic (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Headlines not reliable sources?Edit

Hi Masem, I hope you don't mind the random question. I heard this assertion recently and, while I understand the logic behind it, I can't for the life of me find anyplace it is discussed/outlined on WP:RS or any other guideline/policy page. Can you please point me in the right direction? I'm surprised it isn't explicitly outlined somewhere. Thanks. - PaulT+/C 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The basic concept is that even in RS work, the journalist writes the news story, but sends that to the copyeditor who is going to place it in the newspaper. The copyeditor is going to be the one that determines how much space they can allocate for the article and where it will appear so they will work a headline they feel is appropriate for the article, without consulting the journalist. Some copyeditors will stay close to the material, but not all. As such we should not consider the headline as anything factual - a good copyeditor will make sure the headline is well supported by the body of the article, but that's not universal. See this RFC from 2014 too (and probably searching more of the WT:RS page might show more). --Masem (t) 23:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That is helpful. I was aware of the context and rationale behind not explicitly trusting a headline as reliable, but that doesn't mean they are default not RS full stop; the context of/around the headline is important. The RfC you linked is fairly clear about that: The consensus is no, a newspaper headline is not in itself a reliable source. As encyclopaedia editors, it's our role to read the whole source and evaluate it for reliability. The headline is designed to attract attention rather than present a balanced summary of the article, and to read it in isolation is not sufficient.
All I'm trying to say is that it doesn't seem as cut-and-dry as it's often asserted to be; evaluation and some judgement is required. I guess that inherent messiness is why there hasn't been a clear guideline written. I see in some of the WT:RS archives there have been discussions about adding it as an explicit guideline, but they haven't gotten anywhere. Here is a quote from a subsequent RfC from 2014 about this: I have read through this discussion and the previous discussions on this topic in the archives, and there is clearly general agreement that headlines should, at the very least, be treated cautiously and taken 'with a pinch of salt'. There is not a consensus for any sort outright prohibition on the use f headlines as sources, nor for any of the proposed wordings. I recommend further discussion to establish satisfactory wording which discourages the use of headlines as sources but is nonetheless not an outright proscription.
For what it is worth, I agree 100% with that quote and adding (a) specific guideline(s) about this should be a higher priority, especially if it is cited regularly while discussing sources as if it is common knowledge and practice. I realize I'm probably not saying anything that is new to you and there is no need for a lengthy discussion about this on your talk page. It isn't the right venue and it isn't really fair for you. I just figured I couldn't find the relevant page, but apparently there is none. Thanks for the information. I appreciate it very much. - PaulT+/C 01:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Beat Saber crew namesEdit

Hi,

I think the picture from of the Beat Saber crew from GDC Game Awards has wrong description. The girl's name is not in the image's description. I think you have confused the people ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.222.29 (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I fixed it (no idea who the woman is). --Masem (t) 15:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirect of GAEdit

The following GA became a redirect. I don't have access (or at least I think I don't) to the reasons for it. I was hoping you could explain why it wasn't worthy of being a stand alone GA. Atsme Talk 📧 23:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC to merge , here --Masem (t) 23:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Masem".