Local time or UTC at ITNCEdit

In this edit, you said that noms should go with local time, yet the "How to nominate an item" section says "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." Which is right?  Nixinova T  C   04:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, its the UTC time, I moved it back to the 14th. --Masem (t) 04:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Daniel Lewis LeeEdit

 On 14 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Daniel Lewis Lee, 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) 14:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RSN Comment - Bring a TrailerEdit

Hey Masem, just a quick note to point out that this commment was not intended as a dig at you. I was intending to note that you had already answered the question (quite succinctly) before I had done so on the article talkpage; not indicate that there was any problem with you doing so. Apologies for the clumsy phrasing. Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "Falsely" do describe a BLP claimEdit

Masem, I'm trying to remember my various policies and guidelines. At the top level my concern is when editors say things like "Mr Smith falsely claimed he would go to Washington". In a sentence like that, "falsely" clearly indicates that the object of the sentence, the claim is not correct. What isn't clear is if Mr Smith intended to mislead. My concern is that "false" one of the definitions of false includes an intent to mislead. Thus it is unclear from my sentence if Mr Smith just wasn't able to make it to Washington (his car broke down) or if that was never his destination and he was trying to mislead (he headed to Boston instead). I feel like we have some policies/guidelines that would address this sort of case. First, something about avoiding ambiguous terms that might imply something not supported by sources. Second, something implying something to readers. Crafting a sentence in a way that would lead to a false conclusion. Third would be something about words/phrases to watch for. However, I can't see to find the right policies/guidelines. Do you have any suggestions where to look? Springee (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe we have any guidelines at all on that language. Closest would be same page as WP:LABEL but I doubt there's anything there, but I think that construction needs to be avoided in favor of something more neutral, eg "Mr. Smith claimed he would go to Washington, but failed to do so." A claim can never be "false", but it can be failed to be completed or carried out. There's a lot of similar language constructs that we have floating around that should be addressed too. --Masem (t) 18:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Springee: I share this concern. In the ENGVARs that I am familiar with (which are not US English), "falsely claimed" implies a clear intent to deceive. As for policies, I'd start with WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In these cases we are combining: a) Person A claimed X. b) X (later found to be) not true; to reach c) A intended to deceive. There are, however, editors for whom this ambiguity appears to be a feature, not a bug. - Ryk72 talk 19:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
We often can't know someone's intent, but if reliable sources flag a claim as false, then we need to convey that honestly to the reader. Wikipedia can't become a platform to simply repeat falsehoods while concealing their falsity. That would be deeply dishonest, and would compromise our most fundamental policies and goals.

WP:SYNTH isn't typically an issue, since reliable sources are generally pretty good at accurately identifying and labeling false claims (e.g. [1]). No WP:SYNTH is required, because the reliable source is directly labeling the claim "false", and we just need to honestly convey the source's content. My concern is that reliable sources are often very clear about these sorts of falsehoods, but editors then scramble to find reasons to suppress or bowdlerize the sources' content out of either a mistaken understanding of neutrality, or out of active partisanship. Our project's goal is to accurately reflect knowledge, not to simply parrot random claims, so I'm much more worried that we're concealing reliably sourced assessments of veracity from readers—and thus becoming a vector for misinformation—than I am that we're over-labeling.

Hypothetically, if a prominent person makes a claim which is self-serving but clearly false, how would you propose we describe that to readers? MastCell Talk 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring all other factors, what is a "false claim" that they will do something? Now I can agree that there are false claims, like "Mr Smith falsely claimed the world is round." since there is full objective evidence against that, or "... falsely claimed that Obama wasn't born in America." for the same purposes. But in the sentence proposed "Mr. Smith falsely claimed he would go to Washington." No one - not even the media - can judge a person's intent, only what failed to transpire. In reality, maybe this Mr. Smith had all intentions of going to Washington but too many things stopped him. Is it really right to call it a false claim? Not in such a case. It is a claim they failed to uphold or follow through on, but here this is from a statement they made about something personable that we cannot measure or objectively prove out otherwise at the time they made it. Otherwise, you'd have people going around and adding "falsely claimed they would lower taxes" to every politican's page, as an example. There's a time where that language is right, and a time that it is not. --Masem (t) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
And in terms of how one would say it, if the claim was to result in something measurable that failed to materialize, you can say it that way "Mr. Smith claimed he would go to Washington, but failed to do so." Or "Mr. Smith said he would lower taxes in his campaign, but no tax bills were ever passed during his time in office.", not "Mr. Smith falsely claimed he would lower taxes." --Masem (t) 19:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe. I think we're over-complicating it. For our purposes as Wikipedians, a false claim is one that reliable sources describe as "false". That's the basis of our fundamental content & neutrality policies, and I think we get in trouble when we try to filter the content of reliable sources through our personal biases and philosophical frameworks. For whatever reason, people struggle very hard sometimes and tie themselves in knots trying to avoid conveying simple, well-sourced facts like this. MastCell Talk 19:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
But at the same time, we do filter other things like anything at WP:PEACOCK out of Wikivoice, which I would definitely include this type of language there as well. This is not to whitewash the "False" part away - if multiple sources stress the claim never happened, that has to be said, it just doesn't have to be said as a "False claim" if it was one of intent. But I mean, I am speaking in hypothetical, I have no idea of the specific situation in question, and I am sure there are case-by-case aspects that come into play. --Masem (t) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perhaps a case where intent is too vague should be avoided in context of this question. What they intended is very hard to prove. What about a case where they are factually incorrect but we/the source articles don't state if this is intentional or not. My anti-vax friend may tell me thimerosal causes autism. She believes it but science disagrees. How would I describe her statement to a friend? Michelle falsely said thimerosal causes autism? I wouldn't want anyone to doubt her sincerity while I clearly disagree with the validity of the claim.
What about an easier example about the weather. I tell you it was raining on Saturday. Upon checking the weather we can see Saturday was not rainy. How do we write this in the article?
Springee said it was raining on Saturday. This is a problem since, absent other information readers will assume I was correct.
Springee falsely said it was raining on Saturday. This conveys my claim and that the claim was not correct but it can be read as I am trying to mislead.
Springee incorrectly said it was raining on Saturday. This doesn't read as nicely as I would like but it doesn't imply I knowingly tried to mislead.
Springee said it was raining on Saturday. Weather.com showed that Saturday was clear. Assuming our source cites Weather.com this would be acceptable.
In most cases I recall I think the cited articles avoided the word "false" and instead use terms like incorrect or contrast the claim with that of experts. Springee (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
That's actually a good point about the intent to mislead, and that does go back to MastCell's stance too if we were trying to document misclaims of statements that can be objective checked that moment. My gut would say that we should presume no one is intending to mislead, and thus your 3rd or 4th statements would be proper absent anything else. But to Mastcell's point if there was sourcing that asserted the person was intending to mislead, then that "falsely claimed" would be more appropriate - and that's why I see that as a peacock term because it does carry a weight of purposely lying or misdirection, so it would need to be backed up by sources with that intent. If that's not there, then we'd just have to go after showing the claim was just wrong, and try not to suggest any intentions on the claimant's goal being wrong. --Masem (t) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, I think the right answer here is to follow the language that reliable sources use, and so this discussion is fundamentally misguided. But I'll play along: I think that focusing on intent is a dead end, since it's effectively unknowable. A more useful standard is whether someone knew or should have known that the claim was false when they made it, which introduces a reasonable person standard. For instance, if someone makes a false claim; the claim is publicly debunked; but they continue to repeat the false claim, then we describe it as false (and perhaps infer an intent to deceive or to obscure the underlying reality as well). A reasonable person might have made a mistake with the first claim, but would not continue repeating the claim once it was demonstrated to be false. MastCell Talk 20:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I somewhat agree. Take my example with Michelle. Let's assume Michelle is an anti-vax activist and we have several articles quote her claiming thimerosal causes autism. All the articles state that science disagrees. One or two of the sources use the word "falsely", the others just say scientific studies have refuted/disproved etc. I think "falsely" should be treated like other contentious labels since it can imply deliberate misleading. We have policies/procedures to address things like calling someone a contentious label. Springee (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Let's put it this way; if the press are saying "falsely claimed" or extremely similar wording that's probably fine, but I have seen editors take the case where that type of language is not used, but where the person is shown to be wrong (like case 3 or 4 in Springee's example above), and then call it "falsely claimed", which that I think is what we want to avoid. It is very much tricky language when it comes out of editors' voice, not press voice. And as Springee says above, when it can be used from the press should be done via a source survey just like any label. I'd personally think its possible to word it in a way to still indicating a claim was made, it was wrong, and some way to describe why that was an issue based on the media, but requires being more wordy to avoid the phrase. --Masem (t) 23:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that if RSs are saying it we can follow just as we might with terms like alt-right. However, when the sources don't specifically use the term we shouldn't either. The recent example that had me concerned was here ["no_basis_in_science"]. Regrettably when the original editor wanted to enforce their edits they went to the fringe notice board and suggested a question that wasn't what was at hand. In this particular case my concerns are two fold. First, is the use of the word "falsely" since we don't know if Carlson intended to mislead or, like my anti-vax friend, is certain they are right. Second, the sourcing is poor in that the sources have been taking a specific quote/claim and inflating it into something larger than it really is. I still think TC is wrong but we should never use sourcing that distorts/misrepresents what is actually being said. Springee (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


This is a notification, in case you are no longer watching that page, that an RfC you recently responded to at Talk:Daily Mail, has been closed and re-filed with a different question. BorkNein (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  For your amazing work writing, updating and copyediting at 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam - thank you so much! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

1 revert per 24hr ruleEdit

Masem, I've got a question regarding how to interpret the 1 revert per 24hr rule. Take a stable article. An editor adds a controversial edit. I revert it. That editor immediately restores the edit (with our without talk page discussion). Certainly I would violate the 24hr restriction if I revert again. However, did the other editor violate the rules by restoring the challenged edit? This is a violation of BRD but did it violate the 1 revert rule? Does it create a loop hole where a contested edit can be restored with impunity? Springee (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hellblade IIEdit

Senua’s Saga II: Hellblade was confirmed to run only on Series X at the Game Awards 2019. It will be releasing sometime after Xbox One exclusive time is dropped. Please revert the edit. I am not signed in but please revert this edit as it is fake news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:100F:89A1:6D35:8525:3829:92BA (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hellblade II is confirmed by MS to be using the Smart Delivery system, meaning that there will be an Xbox One version as well as an XSX version. [2] --Masem (t) 18:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Immortals Logo.svgEdit

Hi Masem. Could you take a look at this file? It's be recently updated, but it's more of a case of overwriting than updating since the newer version is technically a different file from the one it's replacing. It does appear that the logo has been change from looking at the source website, but this newer version seem much simpler than the older one and it might actually be OK per c:COM:TOO United States given that the country of origin is the US. This new version of the file also appears to be a duplicate of File:Immortals logo.svg, which again is not needed if the file is truly PD. If, by chance, the older version is also PD, then overwriting it is a really bad idea. If it needs to be non-free, then it will be deleted per WP:F5 or WP:F7 depending upon the copyright status of the new logo. Not sure what to do here. Just let the bot delete the older one, and convert the newer one to PD-logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally would say its too complex to be PD but I have a feeling others would argue it falls under TOO. I'd just leave NFC unless someone challenges it (but the rational needs major improvement). --Masem (t) 13:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. The orphaned non-free will end up being tagged for speedy per WP:F5. If someone reverts back to the old version and then adds it to the artcle, perhaps then further discussion will be warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Far SideEdit

I noticed you've been making some edits to this article. I just wanted to let you know I've had a draft for a rewritten Far Side article that has a ton of info you could use. JOEBRO64 18:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Most of what you have is a lot better so I have brought it in appropriately, thanks! --Masem (t) 18:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem! JOEBRO64 03:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Regis Philbin I agree that Regis Philbin's entry should be included in the Recent Deaths.Edit

 On 27 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Regis Philbin, 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. Grattan33 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Activist againEdit

Masem, a while back we discussed this editor's failure to follow BRD and their questionable edits. Recently I reverted this edit [[3]]. Activist immediately reverted thus ignoring BRD and NOCON. I opened a talk page discussion but the replies from Activist were focused on the editor, not the concerns I had with the edits.[[4]] I'm concerned that every interaction I've had with this editor from the very start has followed this pattern. They make a very questionable edit then go into a full on personal attack mode when an editor challenges the edit. I know they will claim hounding but there are two issues with that. First, I haven't just followed their every edit and second hounding applies when there isn't an editorial problem already. Anyway, would you please help with some mediation? Thank you. Springee (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a problem that requires mediation. The material that Springee deleted twice and which I restored weren't any sort of a problem. I changed a few words, i.e., "is" which was incorrect, to "was," which is correct. I swapped the position of two Wikilinked Schlapp clients for readability. I changed the position of the words "followed suit," in the paragraph. I added a quote. I completed a bare citation. I added one modifying adjective. I've bolded my edits which should make them easy to follow. Activist (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
As part of Schlapp's lobbying work, he was paid $200,000 per year by Walmart and Abbott Labs, and $120,000 a year by Comcast. He was formerly paid $200,000 a year by Verizon; however, in light of Schlapp's controversial comments on the George Floyd protests, where he alleged that Black Lives Matter was "...hostile to families, capitalism, cops, unborn life and gender," Verizon ended this contract in June 2020. https://popular.info/p/a-schlapp-in-the-face Abbott Labs https://www.thestreet.com/investing/abbott-labs-no-longer-works-with-matt-schlapp and Comcast followed suit. Comcast Cuts Ties to Lobbyist Critical of Black Lives Matter, Bloomberg News, Gerry Smith, June 30, 2020. Retrieved July 20, 2020.
So because I added the quote so the Wikipedia readers can understand why the article's subject lost at least $720,000 worth of annual contracts, the absence of which would leave Wikipedia readers scratching their heads, because I completed the citation which had been just a bare URL, and because I added the adjective, Springee seems to think he can yank out my edits.
What he didn't seem to think would have been helpful is that there were numerous other bare citations and a broken link in the section that he didn't think need fixing some of which had been there for years. I can send you a two-column document if you feel that would be helpful to understanding what happened. I have fixed them all, at this point, and tried to find the requested citation when I first edited the section eight days ago, but gave up after 20 minutes of looking.
What Springee is and had been doing for many years is nothing more than whitewashing articles, mostly about various right wing officeholders and executives and retaliating against any editor who stands up to him. The first time I may have encountered his wrath was when he made sloppy deletional edits on the Ken Buck article, conflating two votes on novel coronavirus relief bills into a single bill that had been voted on a week or so apart. I let him know a couple of times what he'd done, but he refused to repair his damage. He simply continued to restore his very inaccurate edits. Then he began reviewing and deleting it seemed, from nearly every article on AP2 that I'd edited in what was recent months, articles that he had never edited before but which I'd edited dozens of times for a decade or more. He was essentially imposing a topic ban on my editing, via his harassment. (I'm a Wikiproject participant regarding articles about over a half dozen states.) Springee also seems to have a penchant for "grooming" administrators, presenting himself as a very cordial, reasonable, and responsible editor, when I believe he's just looking to recruit support for his unWikipedian activities. He's done this to dozens of article that I've edited but I expect he's done it to many other editors. I think I know of one very good editor who completely quit editing because of frustration with Springee and a couple of other editors who operate somewhat similarly as to what he does. He spends about 20% of his considerable editing activity arguing with other editors on Noticeboards, as you can see by looking at his last 500 or 1,000 or 1,500 edits. He doesn't seem to be fixing them, but simply removing content to which he objects based on his political preferences. He has got some allies, at least one of whom I believe is probably well paid, and who was probably blocked at least twice before for sockpuppetry under different User names. I don't think Springee is a paid editor, just someone with a lot of time on his hands and a "mission." Ah, I almost forgot. The remainder of Springee's activities I gather has been similarly arguing with car buffs about the mechanics and performance of American cars. I have an interest in cars but not so much that I post about them. So I do hope you take a good look at this situation and trust that you will come to a fair decision about what to do. Springee doesn't want "mediation." I believe he wants me and anyone else who has stood up to him more than once, in responding to Wikihounding and Stalking and vandalism, to be gone. This a lot of text, so feel free to archive it when this is resolved, and thank you. Activist (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think either of you are wrong on the content specifically on that diff, let's start with that - and hopefully you both know this is coming from my stance generally as being very careful on wording. There are actually two parts to consider. The Verizon/Abbott/Walmart part: none of the three sources you have really are useful for including the quoted text. Popular.info appears to be an SPS so can't be used on a BLP. The quotes do not appear on TheStreet article nor the Bloomberg article. So with that sourcing it is inappropriate, but a short bit of work got me The Daily Beast that notes all three, notes the Cove Strategies (which should be mentioned here, that they were paying that, not him) and quotes his BLM statements, which resolves most of those issues.
The second part is the other paragraph, about the "murder" of the Weekly Standard. Let's start with the last source, the Guardian, that talks about its closure but considers it a political murder ( a valid point in any other case): dose it mention Schlapp? Nope. I'm spot checking a few others about the Standard's death and while several postulate the political murder angle, I'm not seeing Schlapp's name coming up here. In other words, while the events in that paragraph are true and valid and sourced to RS, it is pushing a conclusion that is huge speculation about Schlapp's involvement (if any) in the Weekly Standard's death. Its removal is warranted, though, without spending any more time reading on the debate Schlapp had with Kristol and Nichols, whether that itself would be something to talk about without bringing up the Standard's death. (Masem)
I'm splitting my response, as I wrote it last night and fell asleep before I sent it off. ****Well, I really wasn't sure where this would go and though I don't agree with you completely, Masem, you took this into the consideration I would expect from a fair judge in some courtroom. You've made a number of valid points and you've taken considerable time to think about this and also to look at the source material and your input will improve the article. You obviously take your role very seriously and are clearly not partisan, so I really thank you for dealing with this so professionally and thoroughly. As far as Springee, I'll believe it when I see it. I went 'round and 'round this way with another editor, for a couple of years, and it was very frustrating. He thinks of himself as a Christian, and I appealed to his sense of Christian justice and decency. After a couple of years of disagreements he apologized for some of the things he'd done and written, and I was very pleased to believe that we could have a mutual dialogue, even when agreeing to disagree, and found that became the case. Unfortunately, very soon afterward he was blocked for combative behavior. I was disappointed, though I might have been the only one as he had been aggravating many others. I hope not. I was sorry to see him leave and at the time of his post-blocking departure he thought of his leaving as his permanent choice. Activist (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
On the larger matter, this is basically understanding (both of you) that these are AP2 topics, subject to 1RR. Springee is free to remove new additions they may feel are BLP violations (this does have that appearance) and looking at the talk page, their concerns on some of the sourcing is spot on, but that said, this is not an all or nothing game. There are valid parts to what was added, and to what Springee said on the talk page This material clearly casts the BLP subject in a negative light. is not something we concern ourselves with a public figure, of which Schlapp clearly is, so the continued removals was not appropriate. For Activist, its probably better to recognize the issues in the types of edits here to avoid tripping on some problems that can lead to these removals, and if you feel there might be an issue, ask on the talk page first, there's no harm to present a suggested addition, wait a day or so for feedback and if none, add it. Both of you need to not see this as battlegrounds but a means to work to a common goal, and that might mean some back and forth on the talk page after a first 1RR round. --Masem (t) 23:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Activist, this really is a question of content. I'm more than happy to civilly discuss the article level disagreements. Masem was helpful in suggesting a compromise in this case. I think in a number of cases things could be worked out. However, to do that we can't start every talk page discussion with accusations of bad faith nor immediate reverts of reverts. I'll make a pledge here that if you agree to make a good faith talk page engagement when I see an editorial issue I won't revert until we have a change to talk first. Springee (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Springee Here's where I disagree. I've found you going to many articles that I've edited for years and making rapid deletions, even repeatedly scrambling articles with demonstrably erroneous and confusing edits, as in the Ken Buck situation which someone has corrected, but by eliminating the second vote and Trump's comment that he was pleased with the larger amount of the first coronavirus bill. But this can't be happening by chance, as those odds would be on the order of a million to one. You've obviously had me watchlisted, or you wouldn't have been often following me almost immediately to other AP2 articles, and that's the second problem. Were it about content alone it would be soluble as Masem has suggested and you and I could work it out. This second problem is that you've been Wikihounding me, in your rapid and sometimes clumsy deletions of my edits as if they had zero value. Your purpose clearly hasn't been to "improve" articles but rather likely to stop me from editing at all on the topic, no matter how solidly sourced, no matter how non-violative of BLP or other WP standards, when I might work for hours on articles and you simply delete my edits in toto, in seconds. Some of those articles, i.e., the one on Don Young, which I'd edited maybe 60 times in 8 years, which you'd never edited before, in April you quickly erased the newer work four times in succession, and claimed I was sourcing to opinion pieces when that was only the singular case in exception, and I explained why I did it, I think. Had you come across them by chance and wanted to discuss them, it wouldn't have been a problem at all. You dismissed the source content as a triviality, not notable, whatever, (ah, here's your complaint: "This sort of thing should not be included in a BLP without more substantial coverage") but it's had lasting resonance for months, nationally. Googling Young's name and pairing with it, "fundraiser" or (intentionally) "missed vote," or "hoax," or "coronavirus," or CORVID-19 or "beer virus," (his term for it) etc., etc., each generates 50,000 to 100,000 hits. I gave up after your four deletions as I'm extremely busy and have limited satellite connection time, so spending excessive time on noticeboards is expensive and frustrating to me. Had it instead been me following you and doing the same (behavior in which I couldn't imagine myself engaging) you would have been back to your increasing your life on noticeboards, howling with complaints. I don't think you've ever edited some other non-AP2 article which I'd created or edited, so your mission has clearly been not to somehow "improve" my work, but something else entirely. Your efforts might have always been restricted to deletions. There's a record of course, on all these issues kept in the history of the articles.

In the future, should you find yourself at some random article where you disagreed with me and wanting to discuss it, that would be fine with me. I would be happier if you weren't erasing so much of my work, but instead rather discussing differences of opinion. If you think I need to be topic banned, then you have options, but please don't personally impose a de facto ban on my edits to AP2 topic articles, repeatedly scrubbing the same text with no discussion except a subject line. If I see a change in the prior behavior, which I have found to be incredibly aggravating and destructive, I'll be fine with discussing what you propose. How does that sound? And again, thanks to Masem for his or her sage advice, and I hope we can follow it together. Activist (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Activist, please keep in mind that I have tried to reach out to you in the past but you were very quick to assume bad faith motivations. If you review the times your edits have been reviewed by others (BLPN for example) they have not been well received. The concerns are not mine alone. Regardless, let's try to work together on an article and see where it gets us. The Susan Wagle article as a lot of issues related to DUE, IMPARTIAL etc. Are you willing to use that as a test case that we can improve together? Springee (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
If you truly mean this, I'd be fine with it. By following me to article after AP2 article and not discussing, but deleting, you were not exhibiting good faith. If you're serious, I'll put it behind me ASAP. Wagle was pressured by the party to leave the Senate race to clear a path for Roger Marshall to beat Kobach, and is currently leading the "you can't wear your mask" legislative charge in Kansas. I haven't taken a look at it for a while, and please tell me what you think needs to be there. Activist (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that I have only one edit to the Wagle page, adding a NPOV tag. I did question your edits on the talk page but the reception was not productive.[[5]]. Springee (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Activist is still having issues with following BRD as well as FOC vs the editor. Please note my concerns here [[6]]. Springee (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Joel Ernst Young.jpgEdit

Hi Masem. I'm wondering what's your take on this. It appears to actually be two photos (possibly taken by the uploader at the same event) combined in a user-generated collage. There's no EXIF data and no real source image provided with might verify the provenence of each image. Same editor also uploaded File:Joel Neoh.jpg and created Joel Neoh Eu-Jin so they all might be connected. Anyway, the file is tagged for a move to Commons, but I think there's quite a bit of uncertainty about it that it will end up deleted per c:COM:PCP if it's ever moved there. The uploader no longer seems to be editing, so asking for clarification or requesting OTRS verification seems unlikely to help resolve things. I cam across this file by chance because for some reason it's also being used in Ron Shlien. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see the image being one the user may have taken but they shouldn't have montage-d that before uploading (thtey should have kept the images separate, then made a third as the montage). I don't know what else can be done if it goes to commons as they will likely delete it as you say. --Masem (t) 15:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


Hi Masem. This file has a couple of problems, but I’m also wondering if it would be considered replaceable non-free use. There is a free image being used in the article, but it shows the person sitting with some others looking away from the camera. The WP:F4 and WP:F6 issues could possibly be resolved relatively easy, but a WP:F7 issue would mean that the file would need to be deleted. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The free-image side view is just too far in profile to make him recognizable in that, so I don't think its replaceable. --Masem (t) 13:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The subject is deceased so a non-free image might be possible. The uploader, however, didn’t add a WP:FCT. Given the source of the image, it seems like this may be {{Non-free video screenshot}}, but it might also be {{Non-free biog-pic}}.
File:Dudley01pubphoto.jpg is a similar file with possible rfu issues. What’s your take on that? — Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
On Halevi, yeah, the non-free can't be used without a source or proper tags. A different, properly sourced/tagged non-free can be used as the free image isn't sufficient to identify him.
On the publicity photo, there have been past concerns that those, one needs to see both the front and back of them to make sure there are no copyright messages (I forget which editor there was a problem around this). As there's only indication of checking one side, the deletion appears appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the primary reason the rfu tag added to the Dudley photo is being challenged is not that the "free" equivalent photo is not free, but rather that the "free" photo only shows a profile of Dudley and is not a straight-on image of his face. There's a similar disagreement going on over File:Edgar J Anzola.png and File:Edgar J. Anzola repairing a Model T in 1914.jpg. I know there've been discussion about a non-free image of how someone looked in their prime as opposed to a free image of how someone looked later in life. Has there been any discussion about "profile shots" as opposed to "straight-on shots" when it comes to NFCC#1? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I meant, the shot from the profile is too far that way to reasonably identify him, so it is not a replacement for a non-free image that is used to identify him. It would be different if it was just a somewhat quality image of him but facing the camera. The non-free would be allowed, IF the other NFCC factors on sourcing were met. --Masem (t) 00:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020Edit

Disambiguation link notification for August 3Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of video game consoles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bullet train.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Wilford BrimleyEdit

 On 3 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Wilford Brimley, 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) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § File:Portion of mural Tragic Prelude, by John Steuart Curry, Kansas Capitol, Topeka.jpegEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § File:Portion of mural Tragic Prelude, by John Steuart Curry, Kansas Capitol, Topeka.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Masem. It seems like I've been keeping you a bit busy recently, but perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at this too. Based upon the discussion at the Teahouse, the uploader seems to be quite happy to let others try and sort this out an clean up after them. The image layout in Tragic Prelude seems really bad, and needs to be resolved; however, the best way to do that might depend on whether this file needs to be non-free and whether it's really needed per FREER if it does. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment at MCQ. I've tagged the file as rfu. One possible thing that might save it is whether the photo itself is actually eligible for copyright protection of is simply {[tl|PD-Art}}; however, i'm not quite sure that's the case here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bill English (computer engineer)Edit

 On 4 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bill English (computer engineer), 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. Stephen 05:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard StallmanEdit

Can you please revert Richard Stallman to your version? It was locked by an admin but only after daveout reverted your changes. Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your earlier assistance with this article. Just wanted to apologize for getting, uh, pretty fired up about it. Your help was appreciated. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
FYI - I have opened an ANI regarding this and related incidents here. Lazer-kitty (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Help for summarizingEdit

Hi, Can you please summarizing Undermining WP:NPOV through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on WP:NPOV talk page. Let's focus on the current trend in noticeboard and find whether we need an RFC about balanced interpretation of WP:Biased and WP:UNDUE on one hand and WP:Reliability on the other hand, or not?--Seyyed(t-c) 07:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Frances E. AllenEdit

 On 9 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frances E. Allen, 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 05:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Music licensing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

About the timelineEdit

Hey, it's me, your helper on your project. I was adding onto the timeline the other day and tried to add a section about important games in mobile gaming history. However, it seems that adding another section exceeds the timeline's image size. This would mean one of three options, we replace a section with mobile gaming, we merge it with another section or we don't add it to the timeline all together. I'm asking you because this is your project and you seem to be more knowledgeable about making timelines on Wikipedia. Thanks! CaptainGalaxy 23:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We likely need to drastically trim the number of games in there to core titles that are influential, and this is where we may need to get more sourcing. Like for the PC games, I had started from PC Games' list but I may have to find 2 or 3 other comparable ones , and keep only titles that appear on all of those. Same with arcade and console games. But, to that point, I'm thinking before doing that we may need an article "List of video games considered influential" with a strict requirement that at least two sources are present for each game to say why. It's an idea I need to float by the VG project. --Masem (t) 16:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Video game clone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

FAC MentorEdit

I saw your name on this; could you leave me some feedback on Wikipedia:Peer review/What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?/archive1. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP and crimeEdit

Masem, what policies/guidelines help decide if an arrest for an alleged crime should make it into the lead of a BLP? My feeling is that, in almost all cases no, an arrest for a crime, regardless of the severity of the accusation, should not be in the lead. The only exception I can think of would be a case where the events of the arrest themselves are significant. So if a hypothetical, well known football player were charged with domestic abuse and turned themselves in with no fuss, I would say that should not be in the article lead. It probably should be in the body, in particular if there were previous incidents/allegations that perhaps didn't pan out. An exception might be a case like OJ Simpson's. If we could rewind in time to after the slow speed chase but before the actual trial, I could see adding the chase to the lead at that time. The chase was widely covered and became a cultural event in the US. Even if the trial had resulted in a clear exoneration for OJ (vs just, "not found guilty") I think the chase could arguably be in the lead. Currently I'm concerned where a notable person with a long bio was recently arrested. We have almost no details yet the arrest is added to the BLP lead. I'm curious what policies/guidelines would apply. It seems UNDUE in my book but often DUE/UNDUE for the lead (vs just the body) turn into opinion battles. Thanks for any pointers to places that might help! Springee (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ben CrossEdit

 On 21 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ben Cross, 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. Stephen 04:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RE punctuation and quotesEdit

yeah, I get that WP has its own rules for things. It bothers me though, when they decide a grammar, wording or punctuation rule that is not in accord with the best examplars, and general knowledge of the language. This is the case for closing quotes and periods or commas. WP is not in accord with the accepted rules in American English. I only apply this rule when the article is about something that's pretty clearly American leaning in content, subject or origin. It bothers me a lot that WP makes its own rules like this. What if it decided that the first word of every sentence should not be capitalized? Then folks like you would enforce that I suppose, whether or not it's accepted English practice. Chafe66 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Since Wikipedia is edited by people from all over the world who speak different varieties of English as either their first or second language, the Wikipedia community has decided that things like WP:ENGVAR and MOS:LQ are the best approach to follow project-wide. Usually, these decisions were made through WP:CONSENSUS building many years ago. A consensus can change over time for a variety of reasons; so, you can discuss your concerns about these things at a place like WT:MOS and see what others think. Similarly, if you really think the first word of a sentence should not begin with a capital letter and are able to establish a consensus for such a thing, then perhaps that will come to be as well. I realize you were probably being a bit facetious about this, but that’s what would need to be done (at least when it comes to Wikipedia). There are really very few things that a single editor can decide to just do, particularly when the impact is likely to be project wide, that end up being blindly followed by the community. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of mobile games, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Niantic and Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Lord julyan of SrpEdit

Hello, Masem. I am certain that you have much better things to do, but I was wondering if this user's "I didn't hear that" behaviour is bad enough for a tempblock. Keeps adding unsourced content randomly into articles despite quite a few warnings. See this talk page conversation. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As he has not edited since that warning, I can't do anything immediately, but please ping me if he does continue editing in the next few days in the same style then. --Masem (t) 14:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, will do. PJvanMill)talk( 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
He has. User:Mr kindheart and User:Lord julyan of Srp have also been joined by User:Uncommercial Spacetraveller, advocating similar disruptive edits. HLHJ (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
So far , these are very much warning signs of issues but they have stopped as soon as you mention something on their talk page, so again, this is hard to take action here. But it is appropriate to keep watching including those additional accounts, they could be socks, but nowhere near enough activity to tell yet. --Masem (t) 00:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mr kindheart has stopped editing without engaging. Julyan is adding unverified content after being advised against it by five editors. We'll see how it goes. HLHJ (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


This looks like it might be canvassing, but it does not appear to have borne fruit. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that canvassing? Isn't asking for assistance at relevant projects appropriate? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Me Too movement says it's part of Feminism, and SPECIFICO even said this should be in the #MeToo article instead.[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

TOO questionEdit

Hi Masem. I'm wondering what you think about the file being discussed at User talk:Debitpixie#Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Let’s playEdit

Can you have a look at Let’s play? Looks like we both tried to move at the same time. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC) (please {{ping}} on reply; thanks!)

I'm looking, and I can't find the original article now.... but yeah, I'm trying to fix. --Masem (t) 19:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: and all should be fixed. At least back to the original. --Masem (t) 19:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's also Talk:Let’s Play/to do left behind. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That should be fixed now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020Edit

Discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviewsEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series) § Positive reviews. We had a similar discussion few months ago about this. You maybe interested in this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 20:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting your ideaEdit

Since your original discussion stalled in February, I recently tried experimenting with this idea which is the same concept, only using invisible inline comments instead of the template itself. I was immediately reverted, accused of instruction creep, and told that my idea was bad because it wasn't "common", a fallacious argument if I ever heard one. Although I planned on ignoring the nattering nabobs as I always do, because they are usually always wrong, I reviewed your idea and found myself liking it more than my own. How do we get started implementing this and making it happen?

One other thing I just remembered: I'm fairly certain we had this functionality in the past, either in this template or another one. Since there is little documentation and institutional memory, I might take a deep dive in the template history of this and other templates to see if I can find the original code. I remember seeing it a long time ago, and it feels like we are reinventing the wheel over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The best way to get started on the idea is to set up example templates in a sandbox to show how it works to gain support. I wouldn't go for full on error checking early on, doesn't need to be robust but just enough to show the idea works. Then get ideas to see if this has consensus to go forward - if people are supportive, great, then you can get more work indepth on it but otherwise it then doesn't make it worth the effort. --Masem (t) 01:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is about platforms and arcadeEdit

Hi Masem, i have a question, im not really sure who to ask, what is the difference between (arcade system board) and a (platform) are they the same thing? is an arcade system board a platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talkcontribs) 00:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say generally the "arcade game" is a platform in general, though each individual arcade system board could be seen as a separate platform within that, but generally, when we speak platforms broadly "Arcade" groups all types of arcade machines as one, if that makes sense, whereas consoles we do segregate by the specific models. --Masem (t) 00:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

yeah its kinda confusing, aha, what would be the difference between arcade system board and platform? in your opinion? EzeeWiki (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Platform is defined as the system type you play a game on, the arcade system board is the specific circuit board in an arcade system (one type of platform). --Masem (t) 01:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Would you say arcade system boards all kinda play the same games as other arcade system boards, thats why its generally just (arcade game) as the platform, and for a arcade platform to be noted it would have to have exclusive games maybe? EzeeWiki (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Video game console, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media player.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Marcus Hutchins going to college editEdit

In this video at 1:17:00 Marcus says he only went to the British equivalent of highschool. The edit in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipeepshitbutdontsayshit (talkcontribs) 16:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But in the published interview he did with Wired, he said he graduated from community college. --Masem (t) 16:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I got it figured out, it's a language thing. His "community college" in Wired is correct, but as in England, that's not higher education, that's usually secondary - the equivalent of high school (And there are plenty of such "community colleges" around Devon where he was living), so that aligns with this video comment. So have added the footnote to be clear that this is secondary education and not higher education related. --Masem (t) 18:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ronald Bell (musician)Edit

 On 10 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ronald Bell (musician), 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) 20:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


Hi. I didn't understand the Xbox One revert. What does it mean? Xbox One family? Can you explain please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer Phoenix (talkcontribs) 12:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Diana RiggEdit

 On 11 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Diana Rigg, 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) 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Princess Bride (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shaun Ross.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


Why are Wikia wikis are not appropriate? Wikipedia:External links states that wikis with a "substantial history of stability" are acceptable. The Weird Al Wiki has been around since early 2006 and has an extensive amount of pages relating to the subject matter. TheThingy Talk 18:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because its existed since 2006 doesn't mean its necessarily appropriate. We're looking for Wikis that have well-recognized backgrounds like Memory Alpha or Wookiepedia. I have not seen the same said of the Weird Al wikia. --Masem (t)
Seems counter-productive to remove an extensive resource from an article just because you haven't heard of it before. Doesn't affect me though so fuck it, no reason to argue about it. TheThingy Talk 18:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources for articles on court casesEdit

Forgive the intrusion, but I've noticed your work on US Supreme Court cases, and I had a question for you about sources for similar articles. I'm thinking about writing an article about Uber Technologies Inc v Heller, a recent landmark case in the Supreme Court of Canada. A fair number of the in-depth secondary sources (not unsurprisingly) are law firm alerts for their clients. What do you think about the use of those sources? They strike me as not great, but not that much worse than, say, an article in mid-level law journal. Would be great to hear your thoughts, whenever you have a moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Information not in sourceEdit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to PlayStation 5, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.

Your edit claimed that Jim Ryan said that the development team wanted compatibility with older systems' games but that they did not have time to implement this. Neither point is supported by the source.

Sarah YorkEdit

Hi Masem. Since you’re active at BLPN and also experienced with images, I'm wondering what you think about the photo being used in Sarah York. It's not a flattering photo in any way (she's leaning up against a dirty car and possibly holding a beer or something) and she actually appears to not be aware that someone was taking her photo. While I understand its licensing is probably OK, it seems like it might be better to not have any photo at all than to use this one per WP:MUG. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably something to take up on the article's talk page. (Also the license plate should be blurred out as a matter of privacy regardless) --Masem (t) 14:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll ask someone at c:COM:GL/P about the license plate, but I'm not sure if Commons will delete the non-blurred version. I'll also start a discussion at TALK:Sarah York about the image in general. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hades (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Destruction.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ttg guardians of the galaxy cover.pngEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Ttg guardians of the galaxy cover.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) 17:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Interactive EntertainmentEdit

Hi there. I was looking at the Warner Bros Interactive page and I noticed it is still part of Home Entertainment. Other pages state that it is part of Warner Bros Entertainment directly while Home Entertainment is moved to WarnerMedia Commercial. Which one is true? WarnerBros.com site states it is still a division of Home Entertainment. Is that an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galagahunt (talkcontribs) 15:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Galagahunt: Hello. I think it might be a common misunderstanding as Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment and it's parent company is just a wide variety. I suggest looking into it a bit more and discuss it with other users to get your conclusion. Thanks,   Go-Tsumaroki   15:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020Edit

The Signpost: 27 September 2020Edit

Ghostbusters 2016Edit

The warning comments about not changing the lead seem to have been ignored repeatedly. As someone who was involved in the previous consensus discussion could you please take a look at it Talk:Ghostbusters_(2016_film)#Summary_of_critical_response and possibly revert to an acceptable version. -- 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Thank you. -- (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th Doctors: "Television Appearances" Section RemovalsEdit

Riddler009 has added a "Television Appearances" section to all the pages of the Doctors mentioned in the title. I agree with you saying it's unnecessary as there are episode lists where you can easily find out what episodes a Doctor appears/makes a cameo/is referenced in. Is there a way to stop Riddler009 from adding these "Television Appearances" sections as I tried to remove one of these sections from a Doctors page but Riddler009 added it back again and I don't want to keep doing that forever.

If you're able to find a way to fully stop these sections from being added then that will save us some time and trouble.

Cheers :)

--Euanperrin17 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

FAC mentorEdit

Hey, I saw you help newcomers when it comes to FA. I am new and would love your help on "Cups" and how it can get FA status. If you can't, I totally understand! Thank you! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

SSBU Steve...?Edit

Don't we need a source first if we want to add something about him? Was this just announced? -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

its legit -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@GoatLordServant: I will not add something to WP like this unless I know it to be true, and only generally have to watch for a source to catch up to the live stream presentation. --Masem (t) 14:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Section 230, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EFF.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Overwatch loot box.gif listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Overwatch loot box.gif, 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. Wcam (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Composite Image for Nobel Physics PrizeEdit

Pardon the off-channel ping. Any luck on that composite three member image? I think the articles are good for homepage and are good to go. Ktin (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have response yet back on Commons on the third image yet. --Masem (t) 03:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Masem, Alright. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Note of support.Edit

I'm salving my conscience for dithering on contributing to the recent MfD case until it was too late by writing to let you know that I agreed with everything you said. I think that some important principles are being compromised and double standards and subjective reasoning displayed.     ←   ZScarpia   15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know a thing about that case and even if I did I'm not sure I would have said anything about it. However, I'm one again impressed with your strong, principled stance on these issues. I wish more people would understand the difference between accepting something on principle vs supporting the thing itself. I wish more admins understood this. Springee (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I am getting mobbed by other editors, especially, Smuckola.Edit

I posted campaign links to campaign videos of politicians listed on YouTube. I got accused of soapboxing by other editors. I never intended to spam or troll. I thought that links to campaign videos would be admissible because links to campaign websites and campaign Twitter feeds were already accepted. Plus the posted YouTube videos were made by the candidates themselves. Even if I am wrong, I feel words could have been used which were less inflammatory against me. I am also deeply traumatized by the editor, Smuckola who has accused me of being a spammer in the past. Whatever links I have posted have always been related to the topic posted. Right or wrong, I never intended to spam. Regardless. Currently, Smuckola has mentioned that I am posting nonsense. I feel that the words used by Smuckola were in poor taste. Even if they dislike my post, they could have simply said that they my links were unacceptable for whatever reason they believed. However by trying to invalidate me and my writing, Smuckola was quite insensitive and disrespectful. I wish that editors within the wikipedia community would be more responsible with language and not accuse people of spamming in such blunt terms. If somebody posts links which are off topic , they should be told the link is off topic. Blanket terms such as soapboxing, nonsense or spamming are weaponized to both invalidate and even ban people who may have simply been mistaken in thinking a post was relevant. Please look into my complaint with DemonDays64 and Smuckola who have used hurtful and weaponized language against me. I feel that Tartan357 was also unjust to accuse me of posting inappropriate material, when the link I posted was only a campaign video of Jo Jorgensen on the list of external links for the Jo Jorgensen wikipedia page. Waferpedia (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


I saw the header on the PB page and wanted to contribute, did not intend to infer that you said anything about the fascist label. The disingenuous and deflection response to that and similar material has been go find a source that says otherwise. The reason is because as posted Jorm knows that they are neo fascist(a word with no academic standing, see talk neo fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-fascism). Sorry for the confusion. After rereading. your was obviously the incorrect pronoun of choice. Sorry again.

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q3 2020Edit

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2020
  Previous issue | Index | Next issue  

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2020, the project has:


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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11Edit

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

EARN IT Act of 2020
added links pointing to EFF and Doug Jones
Rhythm game
added a link pointing to Gacha

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

OpEd vs commentary vs commentary + facts vs just the factsEdit

Masem, I've got a question that I've seen come up in a number of discussions and thought I would ask you how it might be best raised to a larger audience. How do we draw the line between true Op-Ed articles vs commentary articles vs articles that mix fact based reporting and commentary vs 100% facts? RS seems to only allow for "Op-Ed" or "facts" and editors seem to put the first two article types into OpEd and thus excluded from many Wiki articles while the latter two are seen as reliable for claims/statements (sometimes with attribution) and thus included when DUE. Is this a reasonable way to split sources?

I don't think many would disagree with the claim that more and more news stories are mixing commentary with factual reporting. At the same time I'm not sure that all commentary articles are "Op-Eds". As far as I've seen, true OpEds columns normally have lower standards for fact checking and certainly allow wider lattituded in terms of deciding that conclusions can be reached. Often they say something like "views are not those of the editorial board". I've always assumed those were the cases that drove the creation of the OpEd restrictions. However we also have a lot material where the reporter is commenting/analyzing the facts. We seem to be split on how to handle these and it doesn't seem that logical to me. For example lets say the Chicago Times sports section releases a story citing insider documents saying pitcher Smith is being traded to the Braves (a fact based claim). The paper then talks about the history of Smith's difficulty with the team citing other articles as examples but also including the writer's analysis that Smith is a Type A player and the Cubs are a Type B team and etc. Basically the reporter is telling the reader why the trade is happening based on his synthesis of available information and offering his opinion (this is good for the Cubs because Smith is the problem). I would view such an article as a mix of reliable facts and subjective analysis.

Now a paper in Atlanta responds to the article. They didn't do any original gathering of facts. They treat the factual claims of the Chicago paper as true. However, they argue the analysis was wrong and offer a counter analysis. Smith and the Cubs are both Type B but the pitching coach has never been able to get along with players who have certain personality types etc. The real issue is with the Cubs not Smith.

Now editors writing about Smith cite the Chicago paper's article because it's a RS. Another editor wants to cite the article out of Atlanta but they are told no because it's just an opinion article. It seems to me that both papers are offering commentary/analysis and I'm not sure why we would favor one vs the other.

TLDR/ Where/how can we have a discussion about the line between commentary/analysis in a factual article and a similar article that looks at the same facts but offers just the commentary/analysis? Why would/should we favor the analysis of the source that did the original work (or at least re-reports the same facts other sources first reported) vs the source that just focuses on the analysis end of things? My personal feeling is commentary/analysis that is subject to the same editorial process as fact based reporting (ie goes through the same news room as the news) should be treated the same way regardless of if the source was a "factual news" story or a "analysis/commentary" story. Any thoughts? Sorry for the excessive length. Springee (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

All of this all stems from what I've been talking about NOT#NEWS for years. We should not be focusing on opinions of the short term - whether they come from op-eds or clear opinion statements in "news" articles, but look for things that are more facts, and only worry about the opinions if they are central to why the topic is notable. Too many editors seem to want to include all negative opinions from RSes to make articles look like laundry lists of bad things about topics (its human nature to criticism) and when challenged, they fall back to "it's in the RSes", buts that why I've been stamping hard on why NOT#NEWS is that important, we're writing for the long-term, not short, and most news articles are not good for this purpose. --Masem (t) 18:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, that would help in many cases but I think this issue would still come up. This is a bit from memory but I think the Southern Strategy article had several cases where a political column writer for NYT or similar would say "this is an example of a politician using a dog whistle or southern strategy" etc. An article in "The Hill" or "Reason" would dispute the NYT article. Often they would be agreeing on the facts but disagreeing on their meaning. But when it comes time to write the article text, the NYT version is declared reliable because it wasn't in the OpEd column. The Reason article is call OpEd and excluded. Since the facts were agreed upon and the difference is the analysis of the facts I'm not sure why we should treat one source as inherently more reliable than the other. Springee (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Because honestly, I feel why we are here is that many editors feel one the few ways they can positively contribute to the current culture war that is out there is the fact that they can "control" the information that goes into WP (and by "control" I don't mean acting as if they have page ownership, simply that they can contribute directly to what goes directly into the output WP produces) and that itself is a means of making sure that when real life "bad" actors are pointed out by the media, WP reflects that. And if that's the NYTimes, the pinnacle of news reporting doing that, they don't want to question that source at all as having any issues and that we must include it. Editors are not thinking of these overall holistic issues. Its a thought experiment that what if we were trying to write about any of these events in 2020, if we only started writing about them in 2040, but otherwise with sources avialable today also available then. Obviously, that 20 year gap would contain something we don't have now, the knowledge of 20/20 hindsight, and certainly some events will have had more enduring impacts on history than others. But even more today's more mundane events, 20/20 hindsight give us a much better focus on how we'd write these articles, and we'd far less focus on the type of op-ed or mixed style of critical reporting in favor of just the facts, and that's how we should be trying to edit breaking stories today. It's just really hard to keep people in that mindset. --Masem (t) 21:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Masem, it's about WikiAgent013. I also reverted the user's edits on Die Hard 2, like you did in Die Hard and Die Hard with a Vengeance. When I did so, this is what WikiAgent013 said to me on my talk page and he reverted the article back to it. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's right! Stop vandalizing my edits and making trouble. If you don't like my contributions you can get you webpage. Stop harassing me or I will report you! - WikiAgent013

@WikiAgent013: - Threatening to report people for harassment is close to a legal threat which will get you banned. Second, the content you are adding - the details of special editions of DVD releases - is stuff we don't regularly document on WP, so its removal is in line, and you need to stop re-adding it without seeking additional consensus. If you do not stop, you will be reported and likely blocked for editwarring. --Masem (t) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1) Trying to intimidate me to not report harassment is harassment! 2) The Special Edition content is part of the movie! 3) If special edition details are not normally included on Wiki then they should be because they are part of the film's history. Mention of any and all special features are a legitimate contribution on Wiki! Therefor, its removal is NOT in line. 4) Do not vandalize my work! It took time to research all of the extra features for this movie. If you have a problem with my contributions then contact me first. Don't just delete other people's legitimate work simply because you think that what they have to say is not relevant. I have been a fan of this franchise for more than 30 years. Who are you to suddenly come along and dictate what I can or can not contribute? I made these contributions so that new fans of the franchise can expand their experience and learn more about these movies. Do not vandalize my work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiAgent013 (talkcontribs) 21:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAgent013: - Wikipedia works by concensus, not what one editor wants. For movies, it has been long determined that while documenting home releases is fine, the details of what added features are on each version of a home release is beyond the scope of WP. Just because you think it's useful is not a reason we keep that information. --Masem (t) 22:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Masem:, Looks like WikiAgent013 is trying to justify his disruptive actions on his own talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bhanu AthaiyaEdit

 On 17 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bhanu Athaiya, 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) 14:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Not essential.Edit

This is exactly why I take such long breaks from Wikipedia. There's plenty in there that isn't essential to the plot, but you reverted mine, because that edit is easier.

Take your win, Power Trip. +1 to your edit total.

Mentor397 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


So, this has gone on too long, and at one point, even spread to Lewy body dementia. Williams' 70th birthday is next July, and I have requested that FA dementia with Lewy bodies run TFA on that day. The last thing I need is for that mess to appear at DLB when Williams is getting high page views! There have been multiple RFCs (as mentioned on talk), but the mess continues. What's the next step to get it to stop? A community-wide, advertised RFC somewhere? An ANI thread to get some sanctions in place? What can we do next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Probably a central page like VPP RFC to decide on what language to refer to suicide, likely proposing the various options that do exist, as to add to WP:WTW. Best I know we've never established any consensus and the best guideance I would say we go with is that this is a national variety aspect, though there is almost the newer preference for language. We have to watch for PRESENTISM issues too - "updating" older deaths with the more careful language may not be appropriate either. --Masem (t) 20:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I can do that, because I am a disaster when it comes to RFCs :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I can prep one. --Masem (t) 20:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I could help, but we know I'm a toxic wreck with RFCs (anything I touch is guaranteed to fail :). Ping me to your draft? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Draft question would be "How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?"
The basic language I think would be something along these lines:
There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide". However, in many common law countries, the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "died by suicide" is more often used. Further, mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal and the alternate "died by suicide" is preferred. (refs, for example "Suicide and Language: Why we shouldn't use the 'C' word" by C. Beaton).
Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter, leading to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures. One can interpret the Use national varieties of English as a driving policy, but this doesn't address the advice of mental health professionals. It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus to WP:WTW as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.
I would then have three staring options:
  1. Use the term appropriate to the national variety based on the person's nationality.
  2. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting on the death
  3. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.
And then having options for other editors to add their own as well as a discussion section. I would have it so that editors should only support only one or two of the options. --Masem (t) 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Very nice. But based on some other unrelated but nasty medical article experiences, I can see the national variety thing being twisted and wiki-lawyered if it's not really tightly worded. What do we do with mention of suicide on general medical articles (as opposed to a specific person, eg Williams), when Wikilawyers want to make national varieties out of everything ... like whether it is Down syndrome or Down's syndrome? The problem might go beyond a person, to the general mention of suicide anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so this clearly needs to be limited to outside the medical field, basically in talking about bios and those in historical context. I would just add a line: This RFC only seeks to get the wording clarity for suicide on biographical articles and those articles that touch on biographies, such as historical descriptions that may need to place the death in context. This RFC has no impact on articles in the medical, mental health, and other social science fields, where editors should follow WP:MEDMOS on such terms. and if the RFC starts to verve to, say, Down syndrome or the like, we can say "that's out of scope." That's just RFC management. --Masem (t) 21:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
But there are Wikilawyers out there. Does the consensus that is established about Williams then apply to the language about Williams's death used at Lewy body dementia ? That is where I have had the problem ... the dispute at Williams spills over to LBD, and I don't even care what language we use! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe that's a fair question if there should be one guide for all articles or separate language for topics of medical-related articles. I am going to assume that the medical literature is less concerned on this compared to the mainstream press? We can make this a two part question, the second part being Should this advice apply to all articles, or should a separate standard apply to medical-related articles? --Masem (t) 21:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
And then, how about this hypothetical. Suppose there are two different LBD suicides, and each bio has a different conclusion: DLB and LBD have to talk about them in different ways? It gets messy because WikiLawyers, by definition, don't use common sense :) :) I don't know if the medical literature has different opinions, but WhatamIdoing may have followed that. And she's good at RFC formulation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Clearly we don't want the same article to have two different standards in place. And outside of setting up some baseline options to build on, I see this RFC as also brainstorming options. For example, in the discussion once this is started, if you feel its important, you can point out that you feel Wikilaywers will force certain things (a fair enough issue) hence why certain directions need to be set in writing. --Masem (t) 21:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Enough bad experiences have taught me that the less I say, the better :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Masem, how many of the previous (very long) discussions have you found? They'd need to be linked.
I don't think that there is a verifiable/real ENGVAR issue here. All the people who want to destigmatize suicide want every English speaker to stop saying "commit suicide"; all the people who feel that the phrase died by suicide is gratingly unidiomatic want to keep saying it. It's possible that "killed himself" may turn out to be the compromise position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The question has been hashed to death, and apparently since as early as 2004 (see Talk:Suicide). More-recently, MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019. I don't think there's an ENGVAR streak running through those discussions either, but review at will. I anticipate that (yet) another RFC would be "not this again"ed. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that list (I will add that to another draft soon) though my memory had the legal issue on the term as a factor. If that's not the case, I'll take that option out and just leave the pre-loaded options as "per sources" (which I believe naturally will have a national bias but we don't need to go there then) and "died by suicide"; if someone brings up the national/ENGVAR issue, that's that. But as I see, we really haven't had a MOS-style RF on this matter that's proposed language to stick and write down, hence the time to fix this and get it resolved. If someone complains in the future at least we have a widely held RFC to fall back on. --Masem (t) 01:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I think every one of those that has a close box has been advertised on WP:CENT and/or at one of the village pumps, so I don't know about "at least we have a widely held RFC to fall back on". But, have fun with that... --Izno (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I mean, outside of that last one w/ categories, none of them are "RFC"s proper which tend to be more weight when it comes to establishing policy in the future. I wouldn't use the other 8-some ones to write language to the MOS that says "follow sources" despite their weight for example. --Masem (t) 01:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
NGrams is telling, though (updated to 2019!). The distinction persists whether in American or British English. --Izno (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, wherever we end up, I am selfishly hoping to avoid TFA instability nine months from now. I hope to at least have a well-formed RFC participated in broadly enough that disruption can be shut down. I compromised at LBD with “suicide by hanging”, so there are other options. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The same advocates who oppose "commit" also don't want you to mention the method at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia, WhatamIdoing, and Izno: reworking the RFC question a bit to reflect the above points, adding in the list Inzo pulled up, taking out the ENGVAR part:
  • RFQ single line question: How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?
    • There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide". However, in many common law countries, the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "died by suicide" is more often used. Further, mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal and the alternate "died by suicide" is preferred.(reflist provided)
    • Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter, leading to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures and related pages, as well as when the term is used on medical-related pages. Past discussions on the matter have come to non-conclusive advice of following the term used by reliable sources: see MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019) It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus to the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.
    • There would be TWO questions.
      1. First would aske what form should be followed for general, non-medical articles where suicide comes up, typically in biographical articles and related historical articles. Options would be pre-set with:
        1. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
        2. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.
        With options for editors to add other suggestions.
      2. Second question would ask if there should be different choices for language in medical-related articles from the first question, and if so, what should that option be:
        1. Use the same term selection as with the first question (single universal rule)
        2. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
        3. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.
        With options for editors to add other suggestions.
    • There also would be a general discussion section for both. --Masem (t) 13:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
      • That first question pre-empts the status quo that "committed suicide" is appropriate, based on the long evidence above. I don't really understand why you would even suggest that. :) --Izno (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Good point; Take it as read that both questions will have an option "committed suicide" if this is posted in this state. --Masem (t) 17:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Why are you pushing the story about "committing a crime"? First of all, everyone knows that people commit crimes without ever appearing before any court, much less getting convicted. The reason people get frustrated about accused people "getting off on a technicality" is that we all agree that they committed the crime but didn't get convicted for it. I suspect that a large number of people who frequently drink alcohol have at least wondered afterwards whether they technically violated drunk driving laws by driving home after a dinner out.
    Second, garden-variety suicide isn't a crime in most of the world, specifically including the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and India. In the case of these countries, this has generally been true for decades. I don't think that you should use that story at all, but if you're going to do that, then you need to make the sentence accurate, which will require writing something like "In a small number of common-law countries, such as Cyprus and the Bahamas..." and maybe add that it's likely that most editors have never lived in a time and place that criminalized suicide.
    Third, felonies aren't the only actions that people commit. Think about "Thou shalt not commit adultery". The advocates want to expunge the idea that the suicider did anything morally wrong, not just (or even primarily) the idea that it might be illegal.
    I share Izno's skepticism that this will resolve anything. It might, in fact, be worth stepping back a level and first asking editors whether they think that written advice would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Six-hour drive home from cabin, hotspot editing from ipad, will look tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    I'm back. All three of you have studied and followed this issue more closely than I have, so I have nothing of significance to add. But I feared the issue would not be easily solved, which led to my initial post about what I will do during TFA when it spills over to DLB. I can see we may end up with voter fatigue ala "not again", but feel like we still should try. Maybe WAID's advice to ask others will help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Just going off Inzo's list, we just never really presented the issue of addressing suicide as "we need to set some guidance on this, we need to figure out what the consensus is via a site-wide RFC." The only thing that we should try to be clear is that the defacto, non-written down approach is "follow the sources" right now, as would be the case for any other disagreements over terms of art in any other articles, so that should the RFC close as "no consensus", then the advice still falls back to "follow the sources" implicitly, and an RFC you can point to in case disagreements pop up ("hey, we have no consensus to change this from what the sources say, see this...") Leaving an explicit "follow the sources" option to be codified though is important as well. --Masem (t) 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    That works. The best sources on Williams at LBD and DLB say "killed himself", "died by suicide", "death from suicide", "died from suicide" and "at the time of his suicide". I don't find the use of "commit" in them, and there are plenty of ways to rephrase without using the C word. That could be a good argument at the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    See previous threads Inzo brougt up - the "criminilazation" of suicide is a running concern there, alongside the mental health issue (the latter more prevalent nowadays though). But I can reduce the importance of that to the mental health. --Masem (t) 18:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New revision:

  • RFQ single line question: How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?
    • There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide". Mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal and the alternate "died by suicide" is preferred.(reflist provided) There is also a small number of common law countries where the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "died by suicide" is preferred.
    • Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter, falling back to the de facto standard of following the sources for selecting the appropriate terminology. This has lead to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures and related pages, as well as when the term is used on medical-related pages. Past discussions on the matter have come to non-conclusive advice of following the term used by reliable sources: see MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019) It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus, if such can be achieved, to the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.
    • There would be TWO questions.
      1. First would aske what form should be followed for general, non-medical articles where suicide comes up, typically in biographical articles and related historical articles. Options would be pre-set with:
        1. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
        2. Use "commit suicide" for all cases.
        3. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.
        With options for editors to add other suggestions.
      2. Second question would ask if there should be different choices for language in medical-related articles from the first question, and if so, what should that option be:
        1. Use the same term selection as with the first question (single universal rule)
        2. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
        3. Use "commit suicide" for all cases.
        4. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.
        With options for editors to add other suggestions.
    • There also would be a general discussion section for both. --Masem (t) 16:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
There are some typos we would nail down before going live, but recognizing WAID's mention that "died by suicide" feels inelegant and ungrammatical to some who oppose it, could we expand that option to say some variant that avoids the use of "commit" such as "killed himself", "death from suicide", or "died from suicide" ? That's what I find in the DLB/LBD sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: (sorry last week got away from me) Yes, it makes sense to suggest those possible options as other replacements. Basically, I think its the divide bwtween "commit suicide" and a less harsh sounding option from those examples. I'd work the option to suggest that approach, like Use an option such as "killed himself", "death from suicide", or "died from suicide", as appropriate to context, for all cases.
Sandy, as well as @WhatamIdoing and Inzo: even though this might not solve something, I'd still like to try to get those posted soon, and want to see if there's any other major issues in terms of setting up the RFC. Even if it fails to resolve the question, it will have tested the waters and we can at least point to something when people keep changing language around, and fall back on that we generally don't change long-standing language like this per WP:ONUS/consensus-based discussion. --Masem (t) 15:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good ... will you list it at CENT? I have been pouting for days as I discovered that someone else has requested another TFA for the same date. Williams gets such high page views that I had so hoped to showcase the DLB article on his birthday, when more people will be looking him up and wanting to understand the condition But perhaps that is not to be :( Oh, well ... we still need to get this issue resolved. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my plan is a VPP posting for the RFC with CENT notice. I don't know if other specific pages should be notified too, perhaps the specific MOS pages in question since that's where I think the advice will end up, but open for other suggestions just to make sure to avoid canvassing concerns. --Masem (t) 16:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
wp:med and wp:wpbio SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
If we had proper voting software, then I think that choosing a list of suitable options would be a lot easier. A voting system like we use for ArbCom elections might work out: your support for Phrase #1 could be nullified by my opposition for Phrase #1, and in the end, editors could use whatever wasn't opposed by more people than supported it.
I think it's important to offer multiple options. A series of similar sentences might be helpful:
  1. He committed suicide in 1980.
  2. He died by suicide in 1980.
  3. He died from suicide in 1980.
  4. He killed himself in 1980.
  5. He died in 1980. The cause of death was suicide.
  6. His death in 1980 was due to suicide.
  7. He suicided in 1980.
Also, I think you should read https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/why-the-ap-stylebooks-rules-on-how-to-talk-about-suicide-dont-work-for-me.html WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is probably a good idea in terms of examples. In terms of responses, given this structure, I'm wondering if we just limit it to "only sign your name to options you would support; do not sign if you oppose an option, but you may discussion opposition to an option in the discussion section." I will add that Slate article to the references below for further reading. --Masem (t) 16:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
By way of understanding the situation, could I recommend a little homework? Put "successful suicide" (in quotation marks) in the search box and see what you get. That's a phrase that nearly everyone (except maybe the euthanasia activists) recoils from. See what works when you try to re-write thosee sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
We only have 36 uses of that phrase in mainspace, and several of them are in context of successful "suicide attack", "suicide bombing" or "suicide bunt", leaving maybe about dozen-some uses related to the term, and even then, half of them pointing to works of fiction. But you get to articles like Bullying and suicide and I'm not seeing an easy way to rephrase the passage There are about 100 attempts of suicide to every 1 successful suicide unless you go There are about 100 attempts of suicide to every death from suicide. --Masem (t) 16:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that "successful [murder]" is such a great phrase, either, but sorting out the Bullying and suicide (and any similar) pages would be helpful.
I'm adding another sentence to the list of examples. It was inspired by the Slate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Powerful article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
To come back to this from thinking on this overnight, I think offering too many choices may be overkill. The key issue at play which leads to edit waring is specifically the wording "committed suicide" or variations on that, verses any of the options that omit the word "committed". (the variations in the latter are not causing the problem). This is the key factor; if the option is clearly for moving away from committed in all contexts, then the alternate form is a matter of a separate discussion but it seems premature to push that question since possible conclusions to the first point could retain "committed" versions and make that question moot. Offering too many options - at least up front in an RFC - can be a recipe for a bad RFC. So maybe the framing of the questions here should strictly stay around retaining "committed" or not, leaving the options as:
  1. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
  2. Use "commit/committed suicide" or grammatically-equivalent form for all cases.
  3. Use a form that omits "commit" or "committed" (such as "died by suicide") for all cases. (adding the explanation that if this option was picked, further discussions on proper forms may be needed). --Masem (t) 17:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that #2 should be only that "'Commit' is acceptable, but not required". Nobody has seriously proposed that every single mention of suicide must use that word. The dispute is only when people remove the old idiomatic phrase in favor of less familiar, more stilted sounding phrases.
There is an ideological component in some of these phrases. To die "by" suicide is to mention a method; to die "of" or "from" suicide is to treat suicide as a disease per se (i.e., the desire to die is itself a disease, rather than mental illness being a disease that leads to suicide), similar to "He died of heart disease" or "She died from cancer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point, but what I think we don't want cases where, like on Robin Williams (where most sources used "committed suicide"), that the option we suggest says that this could be changed to the non-"committed" form since the language we're providing suggests this is option. So maybe option #2 is "Allow 'commit/committed suicide' or a grammatically-equivalent form to be used when supported by reliable sources"; or optionally, implicit to any option is that there's a "consensus required for change" component involved like DATERET. I'm not sure how to present that. --Masem (t) 16:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Beaton, Susan; Forster, Peter; Maple, Myfanwy (February 2013). "Suicide and Language: Why we shouldn't use the 'C' word" (PDF). InPsych. 30 (1).
  • Prianka Padmanathan, Lucy Biddle, Katherine Hall, Elizabeth Scowcroft, Emma Nielsen, Duleeka Knipe (June 13, 2019). "Language use and suicide: An online cross-sectional survey". Plos One. 14 (6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217473. PMC 6563960.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  • Bosch, Torie (January 16, 2018). "Committing to "Committed"". Slate. Retrieved October 28, 2020.

Emblem of Nepal#Subnational emblemsEdit

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at this? I was going to boldly remove the image gallery and suggest an alternative that links to the individual articles about each province or with links to the emblems instead of displaying them, but then thought about whether these might be PD for some reason. Do you think these have to be non-free? — Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't know enough about the country's rules to know if they are PD or not, they certainly aren't PD by lack of originality. --Masem (t) 13:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. I've gone ahead and asked about this at c:COM:VPC#Nepalese emblems. If the files can be re-licensed as PD for some reason other than having to do with TOO, then they probably can be moved to Commons and would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC. If not, then their use in that article probably needs to be discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for OSIRIS-RExEdit

 On 22 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article OSIRIS-REx, 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. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Archived reviewEdit

Hello. Can you please tell me about this archived review? There's a date saying May 11, 2001. I believe it's the date the review was published, but some other users say the date is for something else. What do you think? (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the date when the Wayback Machine captured that page. I do not see a date when the review was actually published but by the nature of the Wayback Machine, it had to be before that date. --Masem (t) 13:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, the thing is the date no only appears on the Wayback Machine bar on the top of the screen, it also appears on the right side of the EP logo. That suggests the date probably isn't just the date the Wayback Machine archived the page. (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That looks like a dynamic field that , when the site was active, would have shown the current day, but not tied to the date that the review was published. --Masem (t) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

For your great work and useful edits Mhiz Destiny Mhiz Destiny (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A propos of thingsEdit

I would drop a barnstar or something, but I don't know which one. Your recent comments on Jimbotalk have provided more clarity than a hundred threads anywhere else, do you fancy collaborating on an essay? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I would definitely be interested, if you sorta want to draft up what you are thinking along the lines of what this would be that would be great. I tend not to have the pithiness I've seen in essays but it is still about getting the point across. --Masem (t) 13:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't do pithy either. Well, I do, but it gets me in trouble...
Wikipedia:Trust, but verify is a kinda-sorta start, but I may be missing a substantial part of your point and going off down rabbit holes instead. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: That does look like a good start, I would want to try to flesh out the point on journalism today a bit stronger if possible using CJR and other similar sources if possible (I've had editors balk at that, saying nothing's changed which is a bit of a concern), and stress this doesn't make established RSes no longer RSes, but only that we have to use a more critical eye in incorporating their material with the wall between news and opinion as thin or elastic as it is today if we are simply reporting on facts. But I do need to give some thoughts were to structure more of that, its otherwise a good start. --Masem (t) 14:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Masem, I agree. Please have at it, or drop sources here and I will try to work them in. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jerry Jeff WalkerEdit

 On 26 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jerry Jeff Walker, 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. Stephen 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Last installmentEdit

If a video game franchise does not have a new installment for 10+ years and there hasn't been any news of one either, is it okay to refer to the franchise's latest installment as the last installment? Wubzy (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Wubzy (talk · contribs) Unless reliable sources have presumed that the series is dead, it would not be appropriate for us to make that call. --Masem (t) 13:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

About your response on Jimmy Wales' pageEdit

I'm honestly having trouble understanding your first sentence: "And those the laptop story is mostly all myth, it is of DUE to at least document the facts of the controversy around it." Is it a problem with me not understanding it, or did you mean to type "And though the laptop story is mostly all myth, it is our DUTY to at least document the facts of the controversy around it"? -- llywrch (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant "and *though*" but I did mean "DUE" as in WP:DUE (that there's weight of coverage about it). --Masem (t) 18:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Learn your facts before you revert.Edit

The Great Depression started in the 1929, and lasted throughout the 1930s. This is arguably common knowledge, but if you disagree on that point due to poor education, even the most minimal research would have revealed this to you. I hear there's even a resource online called Wikipedia!

Commons VPC discussionEdit

Hi Masem. You might want to look at c:COM:VPC#Photograph of Ezra Pound since you seem to have been involved in a 2014 Commons discussion about this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Atlas (video game)Edit


Hello, Masem. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Atlas".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)