User talk:Masem/Archive 12

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

Think you'd appreciate this[edit]

Not sure how to best show it on the article though. Some images at commons:Category:Dustforce too. As the game is one of many in my Steam to-play list, I've not really done much with the image description pages - if you're more familiar with what's going on in the screenshots, it might be worth taking your time to update them. - hahnchen 01:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I think I'll add a screenshot too since video is not always available to all users. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Spshu (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spoiler, a spoiler is something that ruins a twist ending. Just because an episode has aired does not make the ending any less of a twist. --Torourkeus (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SPOILER. Once it is aired, anything revealed in an episode is fair game for an encyclopedia if it is appropriate. Here, revealing that John Hurt plays the Doctor at some point is a very key fact. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:BDD#GA on Brown vs EMA[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added BDD (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

Help page edit[edit]

I just made an edit to Help:Contents that I assumed was there before. I think the wording is ok but others may wish to discuss it and tweak it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted so I started a discussion on Help talk:Contents.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research[edit]

Hi Masem, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Video games talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My out of line comment[edit]

Regarding the comment I made on the Tornado talk page... you were right to remove it. I was out of line. Shadowjams (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comments on two AFD closures[edit]

I've revised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankstown Township Shooting (2nd nomination) to no consensus, but I would assert that the consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree was more clearly a keep. While we're not vote counting, nobody else made any arguments in the discussion against keeping the article. LFaraone 02:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

Brown v. EMA[edit]

Heads up. --Nstrauss (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have thoughts on my latest comment? I'd re-revert my deletion now, but I don't want to step on your toes if you're still considering a response. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFC overrules inclusion?[edit]

Here's what I don't get: if the logos are okay to use on the pages of each individual system, then why not on the overall generation pages? That also applies to the Xbox One photo. I would've assumed that non-free means we're not allowed to use them at all, and so far the debates on the images' deletion proposal pages are leaning towards keep. Why the discrepancy? VinLAURiA (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free means that any use of the images must be in-line with minimizing non-free use per WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. Using logos on the page of the product they show - that's fine. Using logos on a comparison table is not. See WP:NFC#UUI for examples of where non-free is not allowed. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Soetermans's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for your input[edit]

Can you comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:Expatkiwi_.28Result:_.29. thanks Werieth (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria Girls[edit]

Why did you undo my edit to the My Little Pony Equestria Girls?169.244.47.131 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because saying Equestria Girls will be rated R is patently false. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Equestria Girls for children like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic?169.244.47.131 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

First, you lied about 3RR, I only made 2 reverts. And what do you mean "The way this is presently is purposely biased"? It made no sense. Shrine Maiden 16:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So you know, he's putting the same edit on PlayStation 4. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you're at 3RR is a shortcut to say that the next edit will make you run afoul of policy. As for the edit, while being a user poll in of itself is not necessarily bad (but as cautioned by others, can be subject to ballet-stuffing), writing in the manner "The Xbox One lost every category" is clearly biasing the results to the PS4. I know the Xbox One has gotten negative feedback from users, but that should be a section that describes that from secondary sources, not user polls. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source added by Shrine Maiden ... votes were based on number of views of videos posted on the site. This is totally prone to ballot-stuffing, so it shouldn't be in either article. I did clarify on SM's talk page that the warning you posted was about edit-warring and that they were in danger of 3RR if they kept it up. They have deleted the notices, which I interpret as meaning they've seen them and are acting in accordance with them. --McDoobAU93 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than one image used in EastEnders characters articles[edit]

Look at Ian Beale and Dot Cotton, for example. They used more than one image. I wonder if that is too excessive per WP:NFCC. If so, can you at least bring this up in WP:EE or discuss this with AnemoneProjectors, an administrator? Also, look at David Watts. Is there no significant differences, especially when physical appearances are not discussed by text? --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They might be, but a big difference here is that there is significant visual differences between the characters that it may be appropriate to have both shown (compared to Frasier where there's no effective change in appearance since the shows were back-to-back). This is not saying that they need all those images, but there's at least a possible starting point. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about Simon Wicks? Any other articles that use excessive amount of images? --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC) And Christian Clarke? --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THere's only one non-free on Simon's article (The other is a free image of the actor, which is always fine). But you're basically using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which isn't a good argument. Each image use has to stand on its own. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... I didn't realize that the other non-free image was removed from the article... or I forgot that it was gone for a while. As for the "other stuff exists" stuff, citing this essay for non-deletion arguments is okay... or not, but that essay is intended for only deletion discussions. You know what? If people want to change the essay's scope, then... where can I start? RFC in talk page or WP:VPPR? --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I presumed that it redirects to a section of WP:AADD. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

I'm confused by your response to my comment on WT:NFC; it seems as if you've interpreted my support for the application of fair use on Wikipedia (and by extention, the main page) as being entirely based on the legal ramifications of doing so, rather than the dichotomy it creates when juxtaposed with our mission to creat a free encyclopedia. I guess that wasn't the most appropriate venue to voice my very unpopular views on fair use legislation — specifically, I believe that such works should be recognized as free media from a legal perspective. The reason for that is because I don't see how the redistribution of something such as an album cover or a song's lyrics would have a detrimental effect on the ability of the copyright holder to profit off of their intellectual property. Obviously the WMF would never permit that, nor would the community by a large. That is simply my opinion.

I've also responded there. Specifically, I made clear where I stand on the usage of fair use media on the main page. Does that make any sense? Kurtis (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's still not valid for what we call "free", but I'll expand there. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know the widely accepted definition of "free"; I'm aware of copyright laws, what constitutes fair use according to US law, how something can be considered public domain, etc. I can practically recite most of the Creative Commons licenses off by heart. But I can accept that everyone else's perspective is different from mine. Maybe that wasn't the best place to articulate my opinion on the matter. Kurtis (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony Friendship is Magic in Japan[edit]

Is My Little Pony Friendship is Magic for young children in Japan?184.20.209.241 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony Friendship is Magic in Japan part 2[edit]

What do you mean I asked a question with a obvious answer. Is the obvious answer for my question about My Little Pony Friendship is Magic being for children in Japan yes?184.20.209.241 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message to User talk:46.197.130.76[edit]

I saw that you left a message to the IP stating something about MOS:FLAG. I left a minor correction, as it has long been a practice to include the flags of the locations visited within the "Race summary" sections of the various articles rather than in the results table (which is something I've seen done on other language projects). Would you then say that the current practice for Amazing Race pages is wrong? As when there was a minor kerfluffle about it (when one of the other versions entered the West Bank territory) people saw the flags as useful and helpful.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's two primary reasons that in the summary table it's bad: first, one shouldn't assume readers recognize countries by flag alone (in fact, that's against accessibility too) and secondly, that implies a leg is confined to one country which obviously not true. They are fine in the leg descriptions because we have the country name right there and we're breaking out all locations visited during the leg. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria Girls Question[edit]

Do you think Equestria Girls will be a good movie or not?184.20.209.241 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I changed the wrong MPAA rating. :(

This movie is rated PG for action violence and mild crude humor. It's not rated R, and it's not rated NC-17 either.

This movie is for children of all ages, bronies who loved My Little Pony, and girls too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisco9078 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Esther Williams[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

The Classes[edit]

Would it be alright if there was an article representing all nine playable classes/mercenaries in Team Fortress 2? -Kingpinn2 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not notable outside of the game for a separate article. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmau5[edit]

Hey Masem, I just wanted to ask you for a quick clarification on a point you made in the MOS:TM talk page. "If there are two or more styles that exist for a name where one style is the popular albeit non-standard means of spelling." What do you mean by existing? i.e. being used once? I only ask because for the deadmaus/deadmau5 example, there's really not even a comparison between how often each is used. The former is not just unpopular, but is basically never used and is probably only used by mistake. "deadmau5" returns 20,100,000 google hits and 1,720 google news hits and 110 google scholar hits, while "deadmaus" returns 296,000 google hits, 3 news hits, and 7 scholar hits. In other words, "deadmaus" it's basically used less often than a misspelling would be used. I think this stands in stark contrats to the Se7en/Seven example, where the spelling was used interchangeably (in fact, even dvds and posters used "seven" [1]. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't being misled by a notion that there's two common names and that the debate is the choice between a slightly less popular name without the numbers vs. a slightly more popular name with a #. Capscap (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time believing that 296,000 google hits are from typos, and even with the ~ 100:1 split, no one is outright confusing "deadmaus" with another entity. Yes, the Se7en/Seven parallel is a lot closer, but my idea would still apply to deadmau5/deadmaus. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Books Question[edit]

Is the two IDW My Little Pony Comic Books Series the only Hasbro related that is for all ages and appropriate for young children? If not than what are the other one?184.20.209.241 (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revised addition to Xbox Kinect Overview[edit]

Xbox One gets to know you. It learns what you like and what you don’t. And brings it all together on your own personal home screen. And because every Xbox One comes with Kinect, it responds naturally to your voice, movements, and gestures. [1] The Xbox one kinect can scan through clothes to gain information about your muscle tension and reflexes for a seamless gaming experience. [2] The kinect sensor detects when you are smiling, crying, angry, or bored. Every detail of your face is recorded to gain an insight into your likely mood. Even your heartbeat is measured. [3] Your motions can be seen in the dark. [1] Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No part of this is personal opinion. It's all sourced and can be traced back to microsoft statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explosiveoxygen (talk • contribs)

What you are doing is called synthesis. There are some facts in here - that's fine. But you're coming to conclusions about the impliciations of these features that invade a user's privacy that cannot be made without evoking original research or creating a non-neutral point of view. If other reliable sources discuss privacy issues involving these features of the kinect, that may be a case to include, but you as the editor cannot make that. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[explosiveoxygen]
1 I did not write anything which is not confirmed by Microsoft at the xbox one + kinect overview on their page.
2 Which conclusions did I reach? I stated facts.

How is saying that the kinect sensor scans your emotions and can detect and intuit your body movements using infrared a conclusion? How is kinect gaining information about your smiling and emotions an opinion??

3 Did you even read the articles cited? They come to conclusions which I omitted. I could source you the XBOX one homepage for all of these statements, will you then stop removing my edit?
Ex, first off, you need to sign your posts. Its against policy not to and it makes it hard to read your comments. With regard to Masem's edits, the way you've written the section is what makes it suspicious of synthesis as well as copyright violation in my opinion. Its not a very encyclopedic tone or style, its just casual prose. I read your last posting and assumed you had lifted it word for word until I then read the original blog. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it is not encyclopedic in tone and written like promo material. The facts may be correct, but you're writing to say "hey, the kinect does all these things - you should worry about your privacy even if you aren't saying that last part. Calling it "critism" is not appropriate. This information could be written in an encyclopedic tone to say that the new Kinect for the Xbox One has the ability to read facial emotions and the like as part of its feature set, but unless another source connects it to a privacy issue, that connection can't be made. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Explosiveoxygen]

You keep assuming these conclusions which are not written in my edit.
I'm going to make another version of my edit and if you guys keep removing it then you are in fact guilty of bias in hiding the statistics of what a kinect can or can't do.
Criticism is a fine heading, I will gladly rename it or move it to another section if this helps you sleep at night. You are so being biased and then accusing me of it.
Whatever you think is a conclusion is based entirely from your opinion, I did not write those things even in the first version last week which had you guys censor me.
What happened to free wikipedia? Your willingness to censor information is disgusting and you guys are killing the idea of wikipedia being neutral with your bias while claiming you are neutral.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)ExplosiveOxygenExplosiveoxygen (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking this as a combative situation, that will not help if you continue to edit war.
Second, do realize that much of what you have added is already covered at Kinect#Kinect_on_the_Xbox_One; the only things that your additions include are elements that are related to privacy. Sure, you aren't explicitly saying "this is a privacy issue" but the tone it takes screams that, and why it is being removed. Consider what is already present and that your additions are simply duplicating this. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My edit is an addition, why would I modify the words others have written with their sources?
It needs to be on the xbox one page and well visible, not hidden away in other articles.
Kinect is not separate from Xbox One and so your biased opinion is once again showing when you say that What I wrote is duplicated.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fundamental details of what you are trying to add is already present on both the Xbox One and Kinect page. The tone of what you're adding is begging for interpretation. This is not necessary and thus if you add it again, you will likely be blocked again. If you want to get more input, start a talk section on one of those two articles, but I will tell you as you are adding it, that is not appropriate text prose for WP. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems once again that you are assuming some opinion is present "begging for interpretation". That is your subjective claim.
Telling me I will be blocked? I don't just readd the same edit, this is clearly a personal attack so stop telling me I am taking a "combative" mode.
I have modified my words several times and changed the sentences as well as added or removed certain bits. I am not simply "readding".
My edit is neutral toned, you may need to have a discussion with others instead of assuming yourself "Edit Dictator" and claiming you are always right.
You are most especially wrong when claiming there is some bias or opinion going on. It seems you understand as well as I do that what I add is not "duplicated" so you try to list a number of reasons to bolster your claim. All of which are lies and appear intentional.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Xbox One gets to know you. It learns what you like and what you don’t." - What does this mean? This is marketing speak, for all purposes. And in fact, there's little on the MS page to suggest this. So that's original research. "Also, Your motions can be seen in the dark." The source does not actually say this at all. It says it works better in low-light situations. Given that you wanted this under a "Criticism" section, the slate implies a privacy issue, hence why it is not appropriate. Neither of these addresses the tone of voice; we don't use "you"-type constructions, and because of the way you write it, it is implicitly warning the user about these issues. Add that both articles cover all the details we know of the new Kinect to sufficient degree from what MS has stated, there's really no need to add anything else. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please also understand what a personal attack is. Claiming you are making this a battlefield is not a personal attack. Calling me an edit dictator is. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXO01:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Explosiveoxygen (talk)[reply]

Oh wow now I am convinced you are intentionally lying.
"Xbox One gets to know you. It learns what you like and what you don't." is what microsoft claims. The kinect sensor learns about you to better understand your expressionless face as well as to remember when you showed disapproval. This is referenced. It is on the xbox one site.
"Motions can be seen in the dark" Is actually also on the Microsoft website.
What I wanted it under earlier, which was a completely different sentence structure, has no bearing on how this neutrality-confirmed information is presented now. This is again you showing bias.
I'm not even sure what your last bit of ranting is supposed to mean. That's a quote from Microsoft, hence the reference. The information I am adding is not present in the article, I am adding it for a full overview of the Xbox One.
http://www.xbox.com/en-CA/xboxone/meet-xbox-one
Search "gets to know you"
http://www.xbox.com/en-CA/xboxone/what-it-is
Search "see in the dark"

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXO01:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Explosiveoxygen (talk)[reply]

While those are now direct quotes from MS, they also remain filled with hyperbole. Given these are coming off of their marketing pages and not their technical specifications, how exaggerated these claims are are questionable. Take the "see in the dark" claim. Mashable articles, accurately, states that it has been sensing in low-light situations. That's not the same as "seeing in the dark" from at technical claim but to a consumer, that could be taken to mean that. This is why using marketing pages to support these claims is also making these additions problematic.
Further, again, the style is completely wrong for an encyclopedia in addition to begging a biased view. "It can see in the dark" is really saying "The Kinect has an IR sensor that can detect motion in low-light situtaions". "Gets to know you", really means that the sensor has facial recognizition to track users, and keeps a history of what you have done with the unit as to make suggestions. The thing is, these details are already in both articles, and thus you still aren't adding anything new. You're pushing these as criticism but without being able to say "these are bad" and that's not really acceptable. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Explosiveoxygen (talk)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone must have fabricated a fake video on Wired where the capabilities are tested. It literally requires no light to see you. Low light situations is from the old kinect 1.0 not this version.
Watch this exclusive look at how it works, I can reference you the time if you are unable to notice where it shows the darkness vision.
The rest of your post is a moot argument. I will make a nice new page, you will play nice and use the talk feature on my nice new page and when you attempt to delete it, you will be reported. You've repeatedly shown bias so don't think yourself immune from reprimands.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand - everything you basically are trying to add is already present in the articles, and in a much more neutral tone. You posted talk page requests on the two pages as pushing for reception or criticism section. These have zero to do with that facet of the device , they are technical details already present. You have already shown in the past you want to add these as part of the criticism of the device but either you have sources that say that is a problem (which you haven't shown) or otherwise making that up on your own making it original research and biased writing. Consider what is already present and what you're trying to add and understand that you're simply replicating already-existing details. If you make a new pages about criticism of the unit, it will be deleted since we don't allow for biased articles. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[EXO]

→:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi5kMNfgDS4

Vid I meant to link above, check it.

§

My writing is quoting Microsoft. How is that biased?
How is my tone not neutral when I am directly quoting the facts?
What does my previous edit have to do with my current edit? It's been rewritten and I am not pushing for a new subsection.
Which original research? You have yet to even say where this is that I have done this, being ambiguous isn't helping. What's wrong? Can't admit that you are completely wrong on this issue?
Show my sentence by sentence how all the information I put up is not in the article?
Make up your mind, how is a public disapproval of the capabilities of the Xbox One not a reception? I even put up definitions for you.
Why is it so hard to answer all my questions? (This one is rhetorical) How come you keep harping on non-issues that are in the past. Didn't you say I shouldn't be making it personal? Then why are you? Previous edits have no bearing on the veracity of the current edits.
Prepare yourself for some fun, this type of passive aggressive behavior, constantly lying about what I did and then trying to say I'm causing problems will not be tolerated.
I hope you have other IP and other wikipedia accounts, your reputation is building itself to represent a liar and a hypocrite.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)That's enough of the name-calling. You've received your final warning for personal attacks on your talk page. If you cannot have a civilized discussion with Masem, it would be best if you did not interact with them. --McDoobAU93 02:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EXO]Explosiveoxygen (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A hypocrite and a liar is not name calling when the person is being asked to stop performing the actions in question-
Specifically, saying something I did not say, and then telling me not to be biased while removing neutral content.
You are now engaged in bias. Why?

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ex, its really unfortunate that you don't understand that we're trying to help you. The Manual of Style exists for a reason. WP is still very much an open project and community, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have standards that we all have to adhere to and arguing with more experienced editors doesn't help your situation.
Not sharing your exact opinion doesn't make us biased nor does it mean we are trying to censor anything. Trust me when I say that we very much want your help and contributions. But you might want to take into consideration that any opinion that you find in a blog or other editorial online or elsewhere that you happen to agree with does not necessarily belong in Wikipedia. Neutral point of view is concept and principle that is taken very seriously on this site. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EXO]Explosiveoxygen (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look guys, getting your friends to join in and support your opinion doesn't make your bias more neutral or objective. You are repeating lies which I have been accused of and I have already responded to them and discredited them. When all someone can do is repeat several lies and switch out which one they are going to repeat while ignoring all responses, they have become emotionally distressed. At that point it is no longer a discussion. Someone randomly jumping into the discussion and repeating that tactic does in fact not make the false argument any more credible. It would be nice if you guys let the drama go, my information has been included. I have won.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Won"? Wow, you really don't seem to get Wikipedia's purpose yet. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually, its a process that everyone goes through. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony Comics Book Series[edit]

Why I can not add what I put on the My Little Pony Friendship is Magic Comic Books Series page? I did this because I am upset at the Comments that Ghostkaiba297 put on the My Little Pony Friendship is Magic Wiki. Don't you know that that the 2ND story arc will end with a happy ending? It will end with a happy ending. A true My Little Pony fan would know that.The Publicity summary for the Nightmare Rarity ARC said see how the Magic of Friendship prevails in the start of a brand new story arc imply that it will end with a happy ending.Having it end with the bad guy winning, Rarity staying as Nightmare Rarity forever,The Ponies staying in a prison for the rest of their lives and Equestria and maybe the whole world geting destroy is too sad and dark for a children comic books series.The two IDW My Little Pony Comic Books Series take place in the same Universe as the cartoon It will end with the evil Nightmare Forces of the moon getting defeated and Nightmare Rarity turning back into Rarity. Then the six Ponies and Spike will go back home. That is a happy ending. You know that it will end with a happy ending right?184.20.209.241 (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care what is said at other wikis. The show and the series are intended for children, but that doesn't mean they are sappy endings. This should be plainly obvious and if you continue to try to beg the question if the show or comics are really intended for children, you will likely be blocked for being disruptive. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will end with a happy ending right Masem?184.20.209.241 (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two IDW My Little Pony comic book series[edit]

The two IDW My Little Pony Comic Books Series are not for kids. They are for adults not children. It meant for the Bronies only. Is this true or false?184.20.209.241 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are for children. They are catagorizes as children's comic books. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony Friendship is Magic Nightmare Rarity Arc problem[edit]

Hello Masem I have a problem that is makeing me stress. There is this user named Ghostkaiba297 who think that the 2ND story Arc of the My Little Pony Friendship is Magic IDW Comic Books Series will end with a dark and unhappy ending. A guy named Chris seem to think the same way too. But that is not true. This guy see the two IDW My Little Pony Comic Books Series as canon. But I see the two IDW My Little Pony Comic Books Series as canon and take place in the same Universe as the cartoons. They are canon and take place in the same universe as the cartoon The 2ND Story Arc is not going to end with a very dark and unhappy ending. This is My Little Pony not Neon Genesis Evangelion. This is a children comic books series. Having it end with the bad guys winning,having the six Ponies and Spike being imprisoned for the rest of their live,Rarity staying as Nightmare Rarity forever,All of Equestria and maybe the whole world getting destroy and getting cover in darkness forever and killing off Princess Celestia and Princess Luna is too dark for a children comics books series. I have a feeling and I know that it will end with a happy ending. The Publicity summary for the Nightmare Rarity ARC said see how the Magic of Friendship prevails in the start of a brand new story arc imply that it will end with a happy ending. It will end with the That is a happy ending. That why I am stress. What should I do about this? You know it will end with a happy ending right? What should I do? Are they just opinions I should just ignore? Should I ignore user named Ghostkaiba297 and his comment?184.20.209.241 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop asking me these questions. You've been told several times they are children's books. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the two IDW My Little Pony Comic Books Series is for children. I want to know if it is extremely likely that the 2ND story Arc will end with a happy ending and with the evil Nightmare Forces of the moon getting defeated and Nightmare Rarity turning back into Rarity. Then the six Ponies and Spike will go back home. Those comments that Ghostkaiba297 made me want to ask this184.20.209.241 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Masem nor anyone you ask here on Wikipedia will be able to answer you. They are not involved in any way with the creation of the comic series, nor can they predict the future. Wikipedia is about facts and providing information about what has already happened, not opinions and speculation. You need to go to another site that has a My Little Pony forum and discuss it there. -- 140.202.10.134 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Additonal" versus "Positive".[edit]

I've modified it to read "neutral". If nobody else does by the end of the day, I'll give a go at neutrally describing the initial press conference... -Kai445 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced I think is better - in that there are going to be critical sources and there need to be positive sources, and we're not really going to be able to say things neutrally - but I believe you get the point, and that's fine. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony Friendship is Magic Nightmare Rarity Arc[edit]

Masem can you tell Ghostkaiba297 that the 2ND Arc of the My Little Pony Friendship is Magic end with a good and happy ending?184.20.209.241 (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this?[edit]

Why are you SO INSISTENT on replacing GOOD QUALITY FREE USE images with POOR QUALITY "free" images? PantherLeapord (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Xbox and PS4 images aren't free. They are non-free. The Foundation requires us to replace non-free with free. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR comes to mind here. Also: if we were STRICTLY FORCED to use 100% free images then there would be a LOT more articles without an image on them. As the replacement of this fair use photo with the crappy one you are trying to force into the article by way of WP:OWN is doing the exact OPPOSITE of improving the article then the change has to be reverted. PantherLeapord (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the rule is - if we can obtain equivalent free images, non-frees are not allowed - we only use non-free where no equivalent free media is not available or could be created. With both units on display at E3, free media can be created, so non-free media can't be used. Even then, the free image is not "shitty". It's not professional, but that's not a requirement of free equivanelt - you can see the unit, the controller, and the camera. There is no discussion in the articles about the visual appearance of these and thus we have no need for professional images in the first place. This is NFC policy, this is the Founationa's requirement to minimize non-free use. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that your SHITTY image is better than the current image just because it abides by your dictatorship-esque rules? PantherLeapord (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given how little there is discussed about the physical appearance of either system, yes. Free media is the core mission of the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about Masem?, Xbox and PS4 images aren't free but can be used IF it's has a copyright tag attached to the image and explains why it's fair used which both of Xbox One and PS4 has copyright tags meaning and have fair use description meaning they are not violating any Wikipedia policy use of images (see Non-free content), meaning it's not acceptable to replace with free images unless it's been discussed in the article talk page (which you did not discussed about the picture in the talk page). I suggest we keep the promotional pictures from Sony and Microsoft until this matter has been discussed in the articles talk page. TheDeviantPro (Talk) 01:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC: "Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic." In this case the non-free content is MORE ENCYCLOPEDIC than the free content. Therefore unless a MORE ENCYCLOPEDIC image can be found which is actually free then the current image stays. ONLY when this guy gets a photo of it or someone else takes a similar photo that is free then the non-free HAS to STAY! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong. First we're not waiting for one user who in the past has provided free but professional-like images to be able to provide his photo, that's nowhere established in policy. The free images are encyclopedic - they show what the console, controller, and camera device looks like. They're not the greatest images, but we don't care about quality for free vs non-free as long as the systems are still recognizable (which tehy are here). Even with that, with the consoles now visible to the public, anyone else is free to make a free image, that that's exactly the case we don't use non-free use. (I can point to countless living persons where we don't have an image for even though non-free media could exist). This is standard policy, and we're not making exceptions for video game consoles. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. The systems are available to the public (not for sale but on display) so at this point any non-free media cannot be used by NFCC#1. There is no need to have talk page discussion - this is policy, and with the free image, it's a double strike against the non-frees. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

Rfc talkback[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#rfc_2E48DA2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Little Pony: Equestria Girls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashleigh Ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

plot summary - The Inner Light[edit]

This is why wikipedia can't get people to write for them. I saw the episode yesterday for the first time and looked it up on here and found that the plot summary was out of order and confused in places. I don't write on here much, but I spent an hour of my time making the article better. Now, you've twice erased everything I did. Not tweaked or polished it, which I wouldn't mind. You just erased it all, wasting my time and putting back some mistakes that I fixed. Fuck you and fuck wikipedia, I'm done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.242.2 (talk • contribs)

We're writing an encyclopedia, not a fan guide here. To that end, plot summaries are only there to serve the purpose of explaining the out-of-world importance of the episode and thus are meant to be concise. They don't have to explain the episode in scene-by-scene order, but in broad terms (so we're allowed to fix it). The plot summary here has actually been around a while and worked by a number of editors to get it right, so the expansion you did would take a lot more work to get it back to that way. (Also, be aware, your edits are never "erased", they still exist in the history, but part of contributing to WP is knowing your contributions can be flat-out removed by others). --MASEM (t) 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the summary are out of order or confusing. I fixed it and added more, you put the wrong back and cut out more stuff that I added, totally wasted my time. Don't give me BS about not being erased, nobody looks at the history. How many words are allowed in a summary exactly? Is there a rule, or are you just being a typical wikipedian who thinks he's a badass because there's an undo button? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.242.2 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film summaries should be less than 700 words, episodes moreso. And while "no one looks at the history", the contribution is still there and saved on WP. What you added simply expanded; the only "errors" corrected were what we have had to trim out and reorder to make the plot condense. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouya[edit]

I saw your recent Ouya FfD and wanted to drop a note that I contacted Ouya recently about free licensing and their press kit (especially the images). I'll let you know what I hear back. czar · · 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get them to do that (if you haven't used it, WP:CONSENT is good advice for that), that would be great. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I asked the creator of the Ouya picture you added to do an updated product shot, and he delivered. I removed the background and tweaked it a bit: File:Ouya video game microconsole (9172860385) with transparency.png czar · · 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for DOMA[edit]

I bet it'd be interesting if the board were asked to post this:

The SCOTUS rules that people who have authority to defend a case for a state, per that state's laws, have no authority to defend said case, to avoid having to make a controversial ruling themselves

with regards to the California ruling. Of course, that's not ITN around the world, because nobody wants to admit the SCOTUS wimped out of that ruling, but I could probably find some international stories about it. Just a funny idea that'd never take hold from Charmlet (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bible quotations[edit]

I've started an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

dmy?[edit]

I'm not complaining, but I'm curious to learn how did you figure on this? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I might be mistake on the dmy vs mdy here. Clearly the title is strongly tied to Japan, so that's the nationality. For some reason I thought Japan was otherwise a dmy date country like Europe but I see that they don't use either dmy or mdy, so we have freedom here. Technically, the next choice would be whether the game has stronger ties in NA or Europe, but right now there's not enough to go on. So yea, I'm not sure which is proper to use in text. (The citations, however, are 95% ISO). --MASEM (t) 04:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You probably know that most oriental countries use yyyymmdd natively. But "in text" is up for grabs, although anecdotally Japanese articles tend to use mdy. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I realize that now, but I agree that the prose date format is either side (we're not using yyyymmdd in the prosebody per MOSDATE). Past games by this publisher use mdy. Of course, since we've yet to get any firm dates in regards to this game, its probably best to wait to see. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDW Publishing[edit]

Does IDW Publishing have any comic books series for children?184.20.209.241 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbro[edit]

Is it true that Hasbro is pure evil and hate the Bronies?184.20.209.241 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Hey! I wanted to say hello and inform you that I have taken Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned to FAC. The nomination page is here. Comments are welcome :) — ΛΧΣ21 02:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~yay~[edit]

Hey, just wanted to say that I've been very impressed with your work at My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic and related articles. Awesome stuff! --Ashenai (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up...[edit]

Hey Masem, just wanted to warn you it looks like the IP address who's been trolling the My Little Pony scope (and the Refdesk as a matter of fact...) has created an account. See [2]. I'm pretty much 100% sure it's the same person. --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free content discussion[edit]

I had another reply to your last response but my computer has been acting up since I added the drivers for a capture device to convert my VHS home videos to digital. I am not trying to bring that discussion here just that I lost everything to that last response and it was quite detailed. I will make it again sometime later and may not be able to discuss much further so there is an end in sight no matter how differently we may see things. I might have to be pulled into the car tomorrow though.....--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i'll toss a note there that you have a response pending so that the discussion stays open. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection of Rocksmith[edit]

You don't suppose we could protect the page, do you? People keep adding "The Trooper" without a source and it's a different person every time. I can't see it stopping any time soon, and in fact, I anticipate it's just going to keep happening the more and more promo materials are released. LazyBastardGuy 23:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2013[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2013, the project has:

Content

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

Copyright questions[edit]

I understand that translated text is still protected by copyrights. How about a translated poem that is "edited somewhat for style and syntax"? Does it make a difference if it was published in public? If it's copyrighted would it be eligible for fair use? This is the specific example I'm asking about [3]. Thanks in advance. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are considered derivative works, so yes, you're right that copyright still holds. "Edits for style and syntax" of a translation of a copyrighted work would still remain derivative of the original copyright. Thus, like that poem, we need to consider fair use. If in that example the full poem is being used, that's a copyvio issue and needs to be cut out/trimmed, regardless of the intentions. Just as a note that for copyrights specifically dealing on text, User:Moonriddengirl is probably the best "expert" for those aspects, but I don't believe, like myself, they are not a lawyer, and only going by best knowledge of copyright law; they just have had the largest experience and closest ties to the WMF legal side in case there are issues. --MASEM (t)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Titans[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Titans. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Whodunnit? (U.S. TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ===Episode 2 (Airdate: June 30, 2013===

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

Thirty Flights of Loving[edit]

Omg thank you for spotting that the file was tagged as non-free. However, I have fixed that, given that File:Thirty Flights of Loving.png is {{PD-text}}, and put it back to the article. I hope you don't mind. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ21 03:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nude Marilyn[edit]

The discussion about the nude image of Marilyn Monroe at Playboy has been reopened after I added this whole paragraph describing its significance. I'm notifying everyone involved in the review discussion to see whether we can build a consensus deciding how to best portray that image within the project. Diego (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marvel and The Walking Dead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Army officer rank insignia[edit]

Per your advice at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Australian_Army_officer_rank_insignia, I will appreciate your feedback on my interpretation of your advice. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BronyCon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WBAL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ship in a Bottle (TNG)[edit]

I was told to follow these instructions to talk with you.

"1.Click the "talk" link next to the administrator's name in the deletion log 2.Click the "new section" or "+" tab next to the "Edit" tab 3.Type a subject line and your message, sign it by typing 74.99.133.82 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC) or click the signature icon (Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png) and then click "Save page"."[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot find anything labeled "new section" or "+," nor can I find an "Edit" tab. Please move this post to where it should be. My question is, how is an essay style not appropriate, as in my edit you deleted for the Wikipedia page on the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode entitled "Ship in a Bottle". I am not sure what constitutes good faith, unless you were pretty sure that I was talking about things that I shouldn't talk about, things that didn't have evidence, or things that I posted with an ulterior motive. Of course, I'm new to all of the rules. Just let me know what I did wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.133.82 (talk • contribs)

Ok, based on what you said to someone else further down your talk page, I think you meant that the content of the article ceased to be neutral. I will avoid controversial (non-proven) things in the future, if I post again. Sorry about that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.133.82 (talk • contribs)


We are an encyclopedia so we are summarizing what other people have said about a topic. Adding personal essays is counter to that as outlined at WP:No Original Research. While you had one outside source as a reference, it wasn't about the episode and only used to support your essay. Now, if other reliable sources wrote similar essays about this topic we can summarize those, but if this essay is your original thoughts, we can't include it. (Good faith is a term to mean that I don't think you added the material to be malicious, just unaware of our rules and thus you tried to add in good faith even though it wasn't appropriate, see WP:Assume good faith. Basically, I know you likely weren't trying to harm WP so you don't have to worry about being penalized or the like for that, as long as you don't edit war on it which it doesn't seem like you will likely do anyway.)--MASEM (t) 20:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now three weeks old and has now had over 250KB of discourse. I don't think I have ever been involved in an FAC like this. As I stated at the beginning of this FAC, Whaam! will experience the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition on September 28 that I hope can be celebrated at WP:TFAR. Before that, however, we must make a decision on the quality of this article here at WP:FAC. Please consider making a Support or Oppose decision some time soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now @ four weeks and hoping you can help us come to a decision soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination just closed. However, I have been given special permission to relist after 48 hours. Can you try to massage the background section that you have trouble with in that time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

I did not tell you to "buzz off". I told you that you to participate in the discussion or butt out of the issue. And as long as we're citing rules at each other: you are not the primary editor of anything. Read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Everybody's opinion about this article matters just as much as yours. It's great that you've contributed so much to the article, but it doesn't make you the final arbiter of its content.

In any case, please stop citing rules right and left. The basic idea behind this wiki is that we work together to create content. You need to take the time to listen to what people say and work with them to build a consensus. (Note that "consensus" does not mean "you're outvoted!") Rules are something you resort to when consensus-building breaks down. They are not an excuse to avoid participating in discussion. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 4), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alicorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this article and give your opinion...[edit]

...of whether or not the article violates NFCC for minimal use. I see far too many non free images being used. See Wonder Woman.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

Bioshock Infinite[edit]

I probably should have explained my edit. In that section, it says "Two separate pieces of [DLC] are expected... The first..." and then the next paragraph starts with "A third piece of content". It wasn't really clear that Clash in the Clouds isn't the second DLC. Maybe another sentence at the end of the first paragraph that says "There are no details on the second DLC" or something like that would be helpful. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing (I just checked) says "two pieces of story-driven DLC are expected.." and then the next para is "A third DLC is a non-story..." which I think makes it clear that there's a third piece that we know we will be getting, story-based, but we have no details at this time. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are to be commended![edit]

No matter how much we may disagree. you are to be commended for your dedication to our Non Free Content review page. Please, never see me as an adversary. I have the same goals as you and will attempt to better myself as an editor by your example. Thanks for the very spirited, yet civil discussions that I so enjoy about Wikipedia! Good job Masem and remember at all times that you are a respected contributor to Wikipedia tha all should attempt to see and emulate!--Mark Just ask! 06:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BS[edit]

Hey Masem,

"Boy howy, did I got scared when a Splicer jumped up!" - Why do people *still* think BioShock is a surival horror (or has survival horror elements)?. Even on hard it easier than your average Resident Evil game on easy. --Soetermans. T / C 10:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem stems from, if I remember correctly, an MSNBC.com review of the first game that calls it out as a survival horror game, despite the fact that that categorization is clearly wrong. It might have some elements that some survival horror games have, but these are elements also shared with the standard FPS. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2[edit]

Since you were active at FAC1, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People are starting to show support so I was wondering if your initial oppose is still valid at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use review on Whaam![edit]

Hello Masem, i just wanted to thank you for offering your advice on the fair-use questions in Whaam! and explaining the issues much more clearly than i have could. It's a complicated matter, but hopefully won't hold up the whole, already difficult nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game reviews[edit]

Do you know how to add Ars Technica to Template:Video game reviews? They usually have video game reviews. Diego Moya (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know they do but they generally don't score on their reviews (just give a verdict), making its inclusion in the template non-useful. But it is a RS and can/should be used in reception if possible. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

Edit War[edit]

Hey Masem, sorry to bother you; but I was wondering if you could review the ongoing edit war over the inclusion of information regarding a G4 remake at My Little Pony: A Very Minty Christmas. I don't think the person(s) responsible are going to let up. I was wondering if you could semiprotect the page for a while to try and discourage them from the removal of reliable information. In the meantime I will continue to revert them.

Thanks, --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 18:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, I think that the IP's right here - you're using a vendor page and a Twitter, which is rumor-mongering particularly on the G4 "remake". This source [4] about Shout!s new licensing deal suggests that it is simply a reissue on DVD. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now upon looking at the amazon page more carefully, and at the ref you've provided, I now agree it's quite hazy. Moreover the twitter post says "if it's real, then there will be an official announcement" - there hasn't been an official announcement. I'll go remove the information, until further notice. --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 01:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would add the above, however, on the reprint as that is confirmed. (just not a remake). --MASEM (t) 01:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. I have to sign off now but I'll add it to the article next time I'm on, if nobody beats me to it. Thanks, Masem. :) --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 01:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary covers of "The Loco-Motion"[edit]

File:Grand funk railroad loco motion.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Tlm gfr1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:KylieLocomotionCover.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you at least nominate above images for deletion, and then let me revert removals of two front covers? --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the removals and then FFD'd them so they can be assessed inarticle. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought[edit]

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.

Blueboar (talk)

The issue seems to be the verifability of the claim that "Elizabeth Lodge 215 F & A M" is really the group, given that we're starting from the assumption that it is an error in the NRHP. Yes, the NRHP can be infallible but its also presently the most reliable source mentioning the buildind, and its only your (likely true) claims that the Lodge and the Hall are two separate things. If you can find more sources to show that difference as to show that the NRHP is flawed, then you will have more weight to make that change. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BS[edit]

He's not finding any support, and he's just repeating the same things. Why continue to respond to him? Do you really believe there is any hope he'll change his mind? Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think its more the point to show the FAC reviewers, not BS, that his points are not actionable or confused or very trivial, and BS is making a big deal out of nothing. If BS sees that his concepts are being seen as this, maybe that will lead him to state more clearly what he has. However, at this point, I don't plan to respond more to him, as long as everyone else involved is assured they are stating the right thing about the work and Gibbons and the related issues. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

merge is not redirect[edit]

Since when does redirecting equate to a merge, the content is not moved or combined and it has a terrible place on Universal Century. It should be merged properly or wait. I wasn't even aware of the existence of the page till it popped up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a "merge and delete" as a result of an AFD or a merge discussion, then yes, there needs to be a move of content before the article is to be deleted, but this usually needs to be done in a timely manner and it is up to those that want to retain the information to make the merge. A "merge and redirect" from AFD/MR is not the same beast - the content is still there in the page history. It's still up to the editors that want to keep the information to make that move, and it should still be done in a timely manner, but there's less a rush to do that. That said, the AFD in 2008 (5 YEARS AGO) was a clear merge - but in that time no one bothered to do it. TTN's in the absolute right to compete the AFD action there, and if editors felt info wasn't merge, they just have to make one trip to the history. That's the important part here is that no contributions have been lost so there's no harm in executing the redirect that consensus came to years ago. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humble Bundle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Norton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Jedi_Knights.png closed[edit]

As a previously involved editor, I have closed this discussion. Since it may be a decision with which you disagree, and which references your reasoning, I just wanted to leave this message to give you the opportunity to respond even if the thread is archived quickly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment requested[edit]

Hey, Masem, are you interested on commenting on this? It got quickly buried. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Valve games[edit]

Template:Valve games has been nominated for merging with Template:Valve technology. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Vaypertrail (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

Request[edit]

Hi Masem. I'm writing to you and Diego to ask for a favor related to the WikiProject Video Games' Newsletter. I'm writing an article about managing lists for the upcoming (due October 3) newsletter and I was hoping the two of you could write something about the every-entry-has-a-source solution we use for the embedded lists at "art game" and "video games as an art form". If you have time then I'd ask that you write a paragraph or so on the division. I'm also interested in comments on the approach we've taken to dividing "art games" from "games used as examples of art". Any thoughts you could share would be most appreciated. You can see a draft of the article and where your contributions would be needed at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7 (just text search your username). Please let me know if you'd be willing to contribute to the newsletter. -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Masem. We're now entering the second half of September which leaves us with some 2.5 weeks until the newsletter is due to go out. Have you made any sort of decision on whether or not you'd be able to help with the newsletter for this quarter? If you don't have the time or if you decide not to then please let me know so that I can try to make alternative arrangements before the deadline. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Oops, sorry, got a lot of other things to catch up on. Here's a paragraph for that:
"Many lists are based on a clear fact that is indisputable, such as a list of games by publisher. But there are lists that are built on a more subjective quality where sourcing for such lists becomes critical to avoid bias and favoritism introduced by Wikipedia editors towards the list topic. In the case of Art game (games that are aimed to produce a reaction from the audience) and Video games as an art form (games that are exemplified as examples of works of art), where both articles include lists of example games, editors and players will have their favorite titles that they feel will be on or both of these lists, and without sourcing, these lists could have grown to indiscriminate levels. To counter this, we implemented a sourcing requirement that requires the game to be mentioned as an art game or as a word of art by reliable sources. In the case of art games, these sources could include the developer's own statements about the game as the quality of being an art game is set out by theme. For those games considered works of art, we required only independent reliable sources as this is more a function of the industry's reaction to the concept. Setting these bars has allowed these lists to be populated easily and trimmed appropriately when editors add game examples that don't meet these sourcing requirements. This also prevents editors from removing titles that they don't believe fits the definition, as it is not Wikipedia's place to make that determination; as long as some reliable source has made that statement, the game should be kept in the example list. Overall, establishing such criteria helps to manage these lists with a minimum amount of conflict among editors."
--MASEM (t) 13:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah it looks great! Thank you very much! -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A stab at The Blind[edit]

Hey, Masem. Do you think you could take a look at this? I've made an attempt at a simplified version of the compositional analysis of The Blind Leading the Blind]]. I have no idea what the eligible-for-copyright cutoff would be for something like this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: How do you pronounce your user name? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly rhymes with "chasm" (yes, I know it's an odd phonetic thing). --MASEM (t) 23:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

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.

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam![edit]

Given your active participation that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Whaam.21.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
Thank you for your attention to the Whaam! WP:FAC discussion. You having neutral eyes may have been the difference in this promotion.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

Schools[edit]

Side question, that only peripherally relates to our current discussion on School Notability ... please take a look at our article on St. Bernard's School in New York City. I know from personal experience (as an "old boy"/alumnus, and as a teacher at several other private schools in the city) that the article is accurate... it is one of the most prestigious K-9 private schools in NYC (and possibly in the US). It is definitely notable enough for an article. However, I have not been able to find independent sources to support its notability (hits on Google news, for example, are about other schools with the same name). If this article came up at AfD (I don't expect it ever would... but let's suppose it did), how would you evaluate it? Would you !vote to keep, delete, merge? and more importantly, why? Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the nominator's evidence for searching and not finding sources. Assuming they have done as thorough a possible search (offline source searching, etc.) and found nothing, I would !vote delete and/or merge/redirect to a list of private schools in NYC, as much of the article is just expanding only on primary sourcing (like the whole tradition section). But again, key is what type of searching the nominator made prior to the nomination. As you say, if they just nominated because they couldn't find anything on Google, that's not a fair assumption that there are no sources, and would vote !keep on the basis that offline sources must be searched for. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Okami hd comparison screenshot.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Okami hd comparison screenshot.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: September 2013[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
Message added 20:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ironclad Tactics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premature GAN[edit]

Just found this at my talk page after leaving this message for Boaxy. I'm wondering what you think the best course of action would be. Do we let Grand Theft Auto V go through a failed GAN or remove it manually? If we're going off Boaxy's contributions, he essentially logged into his account after three years of inactivity and nominated an article he never helped write, which I find incredibly negligent. CR4ZE (t) 10:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go to the WT:GA talk page and explain the situation and that you as one of the major contributors doesn't feel its close to ready and ask something to quick fail it. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at M0rphzone's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

versions of the doctor[edit]

Thanks for the message, I am done now I have backup copies offline so please feel free to delete all previous versions. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video game screenshots[edit]

I recently noticed your re-addition of a screenshot to Gauntlet (1985 video game). I had seen a couple of video game screenshots that Werieth removed and since I am trying to distance myself from his edits had thought about just taking the images to WikiProject Video Games to see if I could get someone else to tell me if the images are appropriate and if they are, to explain this to Werieth. Once I saw your re-addition and your message to Werieth, I thought I would ask you for your help. At Zoop, I had reverted Deltasim who removed the screenshot with an edit summary of "Added caption." I had gone through Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files and noticed its removal without an explanation, so I reverted its removal saying there was no explanation for its removal. I was quickly reverted by Werieth with an edit summary of "file lacks critical cometary and fails WP:NFC." I am really trying to stay away from Werieth and his edits, but it is hard when he went through my contributions and followed me there just to revert me. If the screenshot is inappropriate in the article, I will drop the issue and walk away, but if it is appropriate I would appreciate it if you would add it back to the article because I am afraid if I do it, that it will be seen as reverting Werieth again even though he was the one who reverted me there. Thank you for your advice and/or help, Aspects (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspects: He's right and wrong here. Technically we do allow a VG screenshot alongside gameplay discussion about a game. But, importantly, the gameplay section needs to be sourced, and as the only source in the Zoop article is a Moby games link, that doesn't cut it for sourced discussion. Source the gameplay, and then it is reasonable to readd the gameplay screenshot. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, October 2013[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2013[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 05:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Card hunter gameplay.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Card hunter gameplay.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Blurred Lines 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Card hunter logo.png[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Card hunter logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Blurred Lines 18:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ir laser armse...[edit]

Ir eld ka qaeda 5 caviar dende, condores ir kallez den wil ir laser armse? Arachka (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

2 things[edit]

First, thank you for providing input at NFCR. I find you comments helpful -- hopefully I'll now better distinguish between what is and what is not {{PD-textlogo}}. Second, I have a question about a free file on Wikipedia (yes, free). The uploader claims the image is a publicity photo taken prior to 1978, and therefore it qualifies as {{PD-Pre1978}}. Although the file appears to be a publicity shot, the only two sources are dead links to an old eBay item, and Wayback Machine does not have any useful archived versions of these dead links. In the absence of reliable source, how should I proceed? Levdr1lp / talk 03:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Levdr1lostpassword: We require for pub photos demonstration that it lacks a copyright notice on front or back, and if the ebay links are dead, then that's not sufficient, and we have to treat as non-free until proven otherwise. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do we determine what qualifies as a publicity photo? Levdr1lp / talk 04:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lostpassword: Well, technically its for any photo, but a publicity photo is usually easy to ID as it will be well posed shot of an actor in or out of role. I know we've had a few editors that try to pass these off as free on the claims that they were meant to be distributed widely, and many do lack copyright notices, but that's not a universal result, hence why we're a bit more alert for these types of photos. But the idea of knowing for sure if there was a copyright notice applies to any photo in general to be able to call it free. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I understand the need to determine whether or not there is a copyright notice (as well as the date of first publication). My concern is whether or not "looks like pub photo" is enough to call it a publicity photo. One could imagine an individual taking a photo which could pass for a pub-photo but was never used as such and has remained, more or less, unpublished. Like something from a private collection. That's why I'm wondering if a source is necessary. To verify that a photo was used in a manner to publicize a subject -- like in a newspaper or trade publication. Levdr1lp / talk 05:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lostpassword: Oh, publicity or not, the same deal to prove a photo's copyright or lack thereof is the same process, we don't treat them differently; they still could be potential non-free images with valid uses for deceased actors, for example. It's just that there's been a few editors in the past that try to push the issue on publicity photos as noted, where they believe that image meant to be distributed freely equate to free images under WP's terminology. But it would be the same case if I tried to put a regular photo that I claimed was free of copyright - I would be expected to be able to demonstrate the lack of markings for copyright. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm not understanding is how publicity photos are determined to be publicity photos. Imagine there was a photo taken decades ago, long before 1978, that looks like a publicity photo, and has no copyright notice, yet it was never "distributed freely". Doesn't copyright status hinge on date of first publication? Just because a photo looks like a pub-photo, that in itself does not guarantee that it was ever published. Am I missing something here? Levdr1lp / talk 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lostpassword:Yes, we do also require some proof of first publication, and there with pubphotos we have to sometimes play the guessing game. The quality of the photos, the posing, lighting, etc., and other elements like that come into play. Their physical versions also tend to be larger than the 3x5's that were more standard for amateur-photos. But we have no hard or fast way to make that determination. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just surprised that while we seem to "err on the side of caution" with most other non-free issues, we are comfortable with a "guessing game" here. Levdr1lp / talk 13:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Levdr1lostpassword:Well, generally because proving something like a publicity photo was published before is nearly impossible. They weren't cataloged or the like, but we know they existed, and some may be recognizable, most likely aren't. We are looking out for those intentionally lying in this area (and some editors gain a reputation for misstating such and thus we're a bit more wary on them), but we generally assume good faith that if someone says this photo is from this source, and there doesn't appear to be any glaring fallacies with that, we'll take that at that word. We can always revoke and fix if found a problem later. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no doubt that proving a publicity photo is a publicity photo would be difficult. It just seems a little too convenient to just assume something is what it only appears to be. Levdr1lp / talk 13:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, thank you for taking the time to walk me through this. Levdr1lp / talk 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

War at the Chrome Heroes[edit]

Masem... The more I've looked at this the more I think it's hoax/patent nonsense. You've already PROD'd it though, so more as a procedural question: Since it's under a PROD banner already, is it inappropriate to CSD it? Or vice versa? Curious where you might have found information about it, I see a bunch of Wikia hits and that's about it, and all of it seems to be as recent as this user's activity. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: That's all I found was wikia hits, so arguably if you think it's CSD-worthy, go ahead and swap tags. I only PRODs as to give that user a chance to explain if there really is something (as fan movies could possibly be okay) but I'm likely playing it safe. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and quotes[edit]

No, don't sweat it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

differences between third party source and second party[edit]

their not really third party, is literally a third party's opinion. second party is anything the author has that wasn't included in the original format and him'her explaining that. critique = review.Lucia Black (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a second party for sourcing - it is either first party that is directly involved with the work, or third party, anyone else, irregardless of what is said. (The "second party" would be you, the reader of the source material, which of course makes no sense). You probably need to review WP:PSTS to understand how we at WP use these terms. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't change the fact that wikipedia has a definition for second party source. WP:PRIMARYLucia Black (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary source" is not the same as a first-party source (read WP:PRIMARY carefully). Neither does secondary source mean second-party source, or tertiary mean third-party. They are two different sets of terms. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Idk..its right there. if its so subjective as you say, you shouldn't be putting a strict label on whats a second/third review anyways either.Lucia Black (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. When someone is saying "primary source", that is not saying "first party". They are very different terms and you are misapplying them. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
idk, it seems mostly consistent. but its moot now.Lucia Black (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move Request[edit]

Hey Masem, could you move a page for me, please? I need WQJK moved to WVRX, the latter is currently a redirect. The reason is WVRX is the new call sign for the station. Thanks in advance...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared to be offline, so I asked another admin. No worries though. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and public relations[edit]

I copied that minor section out of the closed section. If you'd prefer, I can just start it anew. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, that should have been separated. You're good since that's a completely fair, non-fundamental wording change. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Herr_chagall.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_and_repeated_violations_of_WP:NFCC? I have gotten zero response so far. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Humble Bundles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supreme Commander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous and parkour?[edit]

Hi Masem,

Infamous (video game), Infamous 2 and Infamous: Festival of Blood do not mention parkour or freerunning, while Infamous: Second Son comes out of the blue with "Parkour returns as a major element, and is executed in the same way". Of course I can see that Infamous has been influenced by the real-world parkour, but I wouldn't exactly say that Cole is doing parkour. The player gains control after the blast with his newly found superpowers, which let him do all that jumping and climbing without any danger. But anyway, it doesn't have any source to back up the claim. With no sources I feel free to undo you revert, but maybe you can come up with some source? I tried a quick google search, but I'm not the best in finding RSes. --Soetermans. T / C 09:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, I do definitely think we shouldn't have Template: Parkour and Freerunning on video game articles, also on Infamous (video game series). A particular sport genre or gameplay element can be included in a template, but games within that genre or with that element don't have that template. I've taken them out, I hope you agree. --Soetermans. T / C 10:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing a news search on "infamous cole parkour", you see it used throughout reviews. The character was developed to be an "urban explorer" (pre-powers), able to climb up buildings and the like within human bounds; yes, once he gets the powers these activities lose their risk because of his ability to jump higher and take less fall damage, but the concept is still there and compares with how the various Assassins move across cities in the Assassin's Creed games. But yea, I agree on the second point, looking at that template more, it doesn't really below on any specific examples for video games, only perhaps a VG related article about the use in VGs. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Seaman Guard Ohio : Request your participation in the discussion[edit]

Request your opinion on my comments regarding the editorial style and info source of content uploaded to MV Seaman Guard Ohio Kindly see the TALK page of the article at Talk:MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio#Discussion_about_the_article NATO-Legal (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC) (formerly IP 81.240.180.58)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

Nomination of MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsgamaniacre (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can you please have word with this user, they are uploading files under false licenses and abusing non-free media. Their talk page is also littered with file deletion notices. Werieth (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any response? Werieth (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User is now socking with 71.225.60.206 (talk · contribs) doing the same thing. Werieth (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Volume (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected season splits[edit]

Could you look in at The Cosby Show (season 1) through The Cosby Show (season 6) and Six Feet Under (season 1) through Six Feet Under (season 3). I am the only person who seems to be reverting these to WP:PRESERVE the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of response here is curious given your activity at WT:TV. Not sure what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issues are related, as again, the split season articles of these shows (which are clearly notable shows) are being reverted back to the single episode list on the claim that there's no content yet in these articles, and that seems rather silly, once the split had already been done and done properly, as it seems these were. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that while the old content is being overwritten by the redirect, the content isn't lost (since you can effectively revert to an older version). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to revert these?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be uncomfortable currently at the state of discussion at WT:TV to revert that, as an involved editor, at least until better resolution on the matter is made (your goal of adding the award templates is being questioned, so that will clearly put any action, presently, in question. If there is resolution that shows that the splits make sense, I will be able to do it then, but now would be a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Smells Like Nirvana"[edit]

I think that would be fantastic. I'm kind of tied up at the moment with other things, but if you want to take the reigns and then nominate it (or co-nom it if you want), I would wholeheartedly support it. It might need a copy-edit before, though (just in case).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

"What Kind of Day Has It Been"[edit]

Hi, Masem. I noticed that you reviewed the article What Kind of Day Has It Been for GA. I wanted to let you know that I have nominated said article for community reassessment. Feel free to leave comments. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Stanley Parable[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Talk:The Stanley Parable.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SilverserenC 19:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

Your notices removed by blocked user[edit]

Can the user do this? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLANKING, yes he can. However, this is implicit acknowledgement he knows he was blocked. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Thanks for the link. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at DarthBotto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I just realized how botched my licensing procedure was. I was in a hurry by the time I uploaded it and did not find the current overlay agreeable. Yes, please do tag it and you can say I agree with you with your rationale. I'll upload one to the English Wikipedia with acceptable licensing. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the Steam Machine is more available, we should look at getting some user-submitted content to replace the Steam Machine image. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 08:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Video game requirements[edit]

Template:Video game requirements has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buffalo bill-show.jpg[edit]

My dear friend, is the stand-alone handwritten logo free from copyright? --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks liks a standard cursive font, so yes, should be copyright-free (the logo only, of course). --MASEM (t) 18:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is the stand-alone logo of this TV show out of copyright? --George Ho (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would still be in copyright, but if you mean if it would be ineligble for copyright, I don't know think so, the lines are creative enough. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capturing a title card from Youtube[edit]

If a TV program was/is unavailable on home video, is capturing a title card of that television program from Youtube legal (i.e. considered fair use)? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the fact that it's up at youtube would be a copyright there, but of course, the title card isn't going to change just because its on YT. I'd try my best to find any other site that may have the title card as a static image before resorting to YT to make the grab. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, qualifies as fair use? --George Ho (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the screencap of the title screen would be fair use/appropriate under NFCC; the issue is that we really don't want any linkage to copyright-infringing videos on YT, so saying "where" you got it might be the tricky part. As the source is there to primary show that the work was published before, the fact that you can get the title card from a previously broadcasted show shouldn't be a problem, so if you ID the source as "screencap from video of episode of X", that should avoid the source link issue. (If you also explain that no home media of said-show exists in conjunction with that you should be okay). --MASEM (t) 22:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

New section on the Anime and Manga RfC[edit]

Hello there. Since the Anime and Manga RfC seems to have developed a consensus for the "It depends on notability and uniqueness of each adaptation", I have started a thread to see if we can offer metrics or further guidance for such case by case... erm... cases. I have no idea if such a thing is even possible to draft up, but since having it might help, I figured I'd try. The thread is HERE, and as a previous participant in the RfC I wanted to let you know about it using this overly long, rambling message. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 16:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birdo[edit]

User:Diego Moya has argued that there is no consensus on the use of the manual scan image because you and the other user who felt it should be removed provided no reason for thinking this. I was wondering if you would like to reenter the discussion to clarify your points and/or dispute his claims. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Thanks for catching me on my removal mistakes. :v - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the default for most of these from video games is non-free so looking for such problems is perfectly fine :) --MASEM (t) 20:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help improving List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters[edit]

For a while I've been trying to get the List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters to Good Article status, or at least fix the problems it currently has (too much original research and intricate detail, not enough secondary sources). However, this has proven to be quite difficult on my own. User:Yellow1996 directed me to you for help, and looking at your work on other MLP-related articles, I can see why. I'd like you to look at my sandbox, which I've been using to work on a revamp, but know that some parts of it are either unfinished and/or have gone untouched for months. Here's what I'm aiming for:

  • A "Creation and conception" section; the one in my sandbox is just lifted from the main article, and I doubt it's fully suitable for this one. Quotes from the cast and crew on the creation, development, performances, etc. of each character would be great.
  • A good layout of the sections and subsections, and knowing which characters would be suitable to include in the article.
  • Character descriptions that give a general overview of what they do in the series.
  • A "Reception" section, including reliable secondary sources. Again, info on individual characters would be great.

I would really appreciate it if you were to help me with developing this page. And if you're unable to make any edits, I will take whatever advice or recommendations you may give. Thanks in advance. User:Immblueversion (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good start; unfortunately a lot of the good details we know are all twitter and DA posts, and not the best of sourcing. Do you have the Elements of Harmony book, which has a lot of quotes from the showrunners alongside guide material? If not, I will try to scour that though just checking the character pages there's not a heck of a lot (but there's some to help). There's also the new G4 collectors' guide, which might explain some of the generation crossover (eg how Firefly became RBD, etc.) however I personally don't have a copy of that. Also, I think you can safely add in a section on the three big fandom-named BG characters, Derpy, Doctor Whooves, and Vinyl (perhaps more, but I'd focus only on these as they have obvious secondary sourcing), with a preceeding paragraph to explain this fact - it might make sense to move what is in the Brony/fandom article about these to this list possibly. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the Elements of Harmony guidebook, and it does have some information, but it probably won't be enough. I'd have to look more into that collector's guide. As for other sources, I looked at the verifiability guidelines, and it seems that using self-published sources like Twitter and DA posts are fine as long as the article isn't based primarily on them. Now, that would be a challenge, but what about interviews that are released only on YouTube and podcast sites? For example, it's only through TheGuyWithNoName's interview with Meghan McCarthy that we know King Sombra was based on Lord Sauron. If not, I think we should consider a non-conventional list format. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would make sense is to probably use Twitter, DA, and any podcast/YT interviews (those that are copyright-clear) to build out what you can and then maybe edit back. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems that our biggest concern at this point is gathering these sources. I'll see if I can get more editors on board before looking through the other MLP articles for info. After that, hopefully I'll be able to put a little research team together. I did spot a few Equestria Daily posts and YouTube videos among the sources in the fandom article, so maybe I can slip a few in here... User:Immblueversion (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Trick good or featured topic[edit]

I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping out on the four Ghost Trick articles to maybe get a decent good topic out of them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you believe needs to be done? It shouldn't be too hard to GA them for the GT. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, the main article is a bit out of date due to the release of the iOS version. Plot could obviously be trimmed, and maybe the prose could be tightened up here or there (didn't really look, but it couldn't hurt to check I suppose). The characters page definitely could go for a major cleanup (which I will undertake). Missile and Sissel shouldn't be too hard since they're so short. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth[edit]

Cheers for tackling that Infinite section. Had been meaning to finally flesh it out for a while, but writing the more plotty sections is something I've never really liked. I don't know if the section should go into more about how she functions in the game (in gameplay as a companion), but it's definitely better than the short paragraph that only really explained the opening of the game. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances sections are generally plot driven; her gameplay mechanics (in particular here, describing how she was meant to be the companion ala Alyx Vance) should be in Concept and Creation section. And what I added may be a bit bulky still, but she goes through a lot of changes in the story, so much of that is probably justified. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I guess. Agreed on the last point. Infinite' a fairly long and twisty game (and that's before you get into the voxophones), and Elizabeth is right at the centre of it. It'd be nice if it could be refined a little, but there's only so much you can do before losing out critical info.
On a mostly unrelated note, how would you feel about giving Burial its own article? There's the information in the Liz article about making her a player character, plus stuff about revisiting Rapture (and redoing all the assets). I don't know if it'd be the biggest article, but I think it could still stand alone as an independent article. It's not like articles on DLC (e.g. Kasumi, which is probably shorter than the Burials together) are too new a thing. Note: I haven't actually had the chance to play Episode One yet, so I'm not the most informed person about it. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly be its own; I haven't checked on its reception but I know from seeing twitter headlines fly by that it is there, and there's probably enough Dev to discuss it further. Given that BI is already on the long side, it can't hurt. (I would call it "BioShock Infinite: Burial At Sea" for naming purposes) --MASEM (t) 21:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the Bioshock Infinite page and there is a fairly certain claim that despite all the Elizabeths and Bookers, this is the Elizabeth unique to the Infinite main game storyline. I don't recall this being stated in the DLC at all, so has someone just assumed this and added it to the article or have I missed something in the game? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game requirements[edit]

So the template for discussion seems like it should be kept, but the video game project doesn't want it. I have suggested to just do a name change at the bottom of the discussion. Should a formal closure of the discussion be done for a page move instead of a deletion? —CKY2250 ταικ 17:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Buñuel[edit]

Per the request of an editor uninvolved with the discussion, I have expanded the explanation of the consensus in the discussion that I previously closed. The discussion is: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#Luis Buñuel. The consensus of the discussion, nor have my closure have changed, simply the explanation has been extended to include the individual images discussed. I am notifying you because you rightfully should be made aware when anything is changed regarding to a discussion you participated in. No action is required. As I have stated many times before, if an uninvolved administrator finds fault with my closure, I am more than happy to reopen the discussion. If a situation of that nature should arise, I will once again notify all parties involved in the discussion. Thanks for your hard work and happy editing! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

Image opinion[edit]

I was wondering if you could give your opinion on an image I am questioning adding. Could you let me know which image you feel represents the Batman: Arkham page better: the one currently on the page, or this one at the top of the article? The one on the page now is more neutral, thus applying generally, but the one in the article, I feel, is a better representation of the main games, as it incorporates the design used by each. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference seems to be the coloring - and if my memory serves me correctly, the orange-ish, white, and blue are the primary "colors" of the three games individually. Mind you, I don't know if you can source that , but I would think that the collection logo (less the text lines) would be better, and you can caption it to say its from the collection. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the insight Masem. I have approach a few other users on the images, just to get an idea on their opinions as well. I may be leaning towards the collection logo, and was thinking about the cropping. If done, would it be acceptable to just crop the "Collection" text, to leave the bat logo and then "Arkham"? The only thing I'm thinking with this, is that the "Arkham" styling is not consistent across the three games, and thus may not be a proper representation. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
The fact they are using that logo on the collection packaging means, for us, that's as good as a series logo. Just make sure that when you include it, you say something like "The Logo of the Batman Arkham collection", so that we are not claiming it a consistent logo, but a logo. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. After I messaged you, I realized I forgot to say, if used it, I would caption it appropriately. Something along the lines of "Logo of the Batman: Arkham Collection, featuring the designs of the logo used on (from L to R) Arkham Asylum, Arkham City and Arkham Origins." But thanks for your opinion, again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What defines persistent vandalism?[edit]

This user here User:Ral539 has caught my attention as a very disruptive person. I reported him to the WP:AIV however a moderator is saying that WP:AN/I should be used instead, frankly there would be no point to that since the user does not comment on anything.—CKY2250 ταικ 04:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I stumbled upon your converstation by chance. I also had my fair share of run-ins with Ral, and they always just blanks their talk page, no communicating whatsoever. If you take action, please let me know. --Soetermans. T / C 16:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I also see good (or good faith) edits among the disruption. That's not going to make a good ANI case, and if approaching hasn't helped, the next reasonable step is to open an WP:RFC/U, and hope they participate. At least that would set up any evidence that could be used to support action at ANI down the road. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another revert without any comment on {{BioShock series}}, after I left another message at their talk page. Shall we start the RfC/U? What do you say, Cky2250 (talk · contribs)? --Soetermans. T / C 23:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can start one, I will add my info to clarify. Put a notice on my talk page. Soetermans (talk · contribs) —CKY2250 ταικ 00:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, sorry for my late reply. I was just about to go to RfC, but apparently somebody beat us to it. --Soetermans. T / C 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but I stumbled upon this discussion while writing a comment below here and I've had a couple of problems with the editor as well (1 2). I see good faith in some of his editing, but he doesn't engage with other editors and blanks his talk page. After his block expires, is there some way to encourage him to engage in discussion with other editors to prevent future edit wars? CR4ZE (t) 14:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Band revert[edit]

Can you explain exactly who decided to use DMY in the article because there doesn't appear to be a discussion that I can see. Also the game is developed, published, and distributed by three separate American companies. The first date in the article was MDY and should have stated that way per WP:DATERET. Video games do not have the same guidelines as songs and albums. They are completely different. JOJ Hutton 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're using the dmy because while the game is developed by American companies, the band - the focus of the game - is British, and that's a stronger natioanal tie than the developers here. Further, the first date in the article before your change ([5]) was dmy (the 9 September in the lead). Also, DATERAT does let you fix inconsistent dates, but it is clear that the primary date format is dmy throughout the article and references. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as stronger or weaker. The game is an American made game. Like all other games, the dates should reflect the developer not the music within it. You are basically saying that the game developers don't matter. JOJ Hutton 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For all the other Rock Band articles, we use mdy dates, since there's no other national ties outside the developers even with the products being used internationally. But when we are talking the Beatles, including the assistance of the surviving members, the widows, and several others that were instrumental in their success - all British elements, that sorta overwhelms the developer, who yes made the game but not without the help of these previous people. This is clearly where WP:STRONGNAT comes into play, and recognizing that this game is less about the developers and more about the band. I do note that the article passed FAC with this date format, so if that was a problem then, it definitely would have been called out. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The developer is the main element. The Beatles do not own the game, the music is obviously licensed for use in the game by the developer, but the developer is the actual owner of the game code. If this was a song or an album by a British band DMY would be appropriate, but it's not. It's an American video game which licenses music to use in the game by a British band. In the cases of video games, the home company of the developer takes precedence. JOJ Hutton 21:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The game would have no happened without the Beatles input, so yes, in this exception, we defer to the nationality that made the game happen. (Or to be more example, there is valid reasons either date format could be used, but the article has been developed on dmy). But even consider that may be mdy was appropriate, WP:DATERET states that you shouldn't make such sweeping changes throughout the entire article where there is already a consistent date format (For cleaning one or two dates out of line, sure, but not replacing all of them); you're free to start a discussion to see if you can get consensus to change the dates. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is that the game is an American game. Not a British game or even a British-American game. Strongnat demands that American video games use American style dates and spellings. JOJ Hutton 14:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that's not true. The game has Apple Corps as part of the development team (the agency that owns all the Beatles recordings), and they're UK-based, so this is a American-British collaboration. And no, even at the video game project, we consider the developer to not have the strongest ties compared to where it was released first - if an American-developed game first came out in Europe, we'd likely use dmy. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I haven't seen any indication that Apple Corps owns any copyrights on the game itself, which is what this article is about. The game, not the music. Apple Corps collaborated on the music, but they are not the developers if the game. It's also interesting to note that the official game website [Thebeatlesrockband.com] uses MDY. The article should follow that rule as well since it's an American copyrighted game. JOJ Hutton 16:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out another example (a featured article) of Batman: Arkham Asylum where the article uses mdy but the developer (Rocksteady) is UK-based; it is likely mdy due to the iconic nature of the American comic character. In any case, to get more opinion, I've posed the question at [6]. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'd support DMY in that article because the developer is a British company. It's like with film articles, Wikipedia needs to have one criteria for determining nationality for date and spelling usage. In film articles it's the production company. That's why Superman (film) uses DMY despite its overwhelming American content because it was produced by a British film company. The same rules should apply to video games as well. JOJ Hutton 19:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is - there is no rule that says for a published work, the date format is tied to the main developer. I'm not denying that the developer's nationality plays a large roll what date format should be used, but it's not a flat out rule or guidance anywhere that the developer's nationality is the sole determinant for the date format. There never has been such a rule or requirement, since there are points for exception. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if there isn't such a requirement, there should be. The problems with "exceptions" is that nobody ever agrees what they should be. Perhaps an RFC at WT:VIDEOGAME might open this up to more input because there should some form of conformity in how we use this shared English Wikipedia. That way we can get opinions on both The Beatles game and the Batman game.JOJ Hutton 20:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And before I forget which article it is, the article about the video game Reservoir Dogs (video game) is a UK developed video game based on an American film using DMY. Just wanted to throw that out there for discussion. JOJ Hutton 22:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icarly-logo-2.png[edit]

Deletion of this file File:Icarly-logo-2.png is now under review. Join in discussion by clicking WP:Deletion review#File:Icarly-logo-2.png. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

Request for Comment[edit]

A request for comment has been started on an issue you have been discussing at Talk:Doctor_Who#Tables.

Female characters[edit]

  • If we start from the point that we agree that lead female characters is a thing interested by the press (for a number of reasons but most specifically to show issues of a field normally dominated by strong male characters with females typically portrayed as frail and weak),

That's totally untrue. For example, in real life men don't fight women in martial arts, or don't compete in athletic sports (because there would be no competition). But in games, women are strong enough to go unsegregated in just aout any fighting game since 1991 and Chun-Li. Of course, games are not about realism, but this theory is completely false.

(Also, Chun-Li was never a protagonist of anything but some comics and a shitty movie.)

  • do you seriously think that such gender activists in the video game industry are cheering that Ms. Pac-man is a female protagonist?

I seriously don't care for whom "gender activists in the video game industry" cheer.

  • No, they are calling out to the Lara Crofts, the Faiths, the Lightnings

I think they might actually think all the "sexualization fantasy", "male gaze", "rape culture", "fighting fucktoy", "check your privilege", "die cis scum" about Lara (Classic) or Lightning and their kind. But as I said, I just don't care (anymore). I'm seriously tired of that stupid bullshit.

  • - where the female character is the primary lead character and strongly characterized, not just because some dev put "Ms." in front of a name or breasts on the model.

The "activists" tend to think boobs = Hitler.

  • That's the problem with this list as you are maintaining it - it's not resolving games that actually having female leads. Using the term "protagonist" makes this too broad, since by definition the protagonist is either going to be male or female (excluding a small fraction of non-gendered lead characters).

"Protagonist" is actually very narrow, and it will usually be male anyway. --Niemti (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're being rather silly Niemti. The Hitler strawman especially. No one thinks that boobs are Hitler. The problem stems from this - when one is shopping for a male character, one has options. If they don't want to be Marcus Fenix or Soap McTavish, why not smarmy Nathan Drake, or clever Sly Cooper, or happy-go-lucky Mario, or comic relief Luigi, or stoic hardened hero Gordon Freeman? It isn't quite that easy with women, as all too often one of the defining traits is their gender (and as a result, these characters are further designed by a specific gender stereotype such as the damsel in distress, the Ms. Male Character, and the buxom beauty). This is why we see far more articles that discuss women in games than men in games specifically. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "gender stereotype" "the Ms. Male Character", it's just some bullshit invented by Sarkeesian. And female characters are "discussed" (which mostly means they're criticized/attacked for not being "progresive" enough for someone's tastes) more for the same reason as this happens. --Niemti (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are many that agree with her, it's not just a random wacko opinion. But the point is still that a video game is going to have one or more protagonists, and they are going to be male or female (with a select random cases of "no gender" for robots or the like). The split between male or female isn't 50/50, but it's also not significantly the case that woman protagonists are a small minority of these games, because the gender of a character can only be one of two ways. Counter this to games where the protagonist is a child, as there are many possible ages one can give a character, and selecting a child to classify protagonists is appropriate discrimination. But on whether the protagonist is male or female? No, that's indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

Saints Row rewrite[edit]

Opened up a discussion at WT:VG and am curious if you'd be interested. I've started making plans to overhaul the Saints Row article, and am trying to gauge whether anybody else would be on board for copy-editing, expansion and the like. I'm asking if you'd be interested in lending a hand every so often given your work on the Saints Row 2 article. CR4ZE (t) 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack[edit]

Can you please take a look at [7] ? Thanks Werieth (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Hi Masem, I was hoping to ask this on AN, but the thread was closed before I got to it, so I hope you don't mind if I ask here. It's something I've been asking for years, but I've never received an answer. The question is: who benefits from Wikipedia being so strict about fair use? In whose interests do we act when we remove Madeleine McCann's right eye?

I understand that in some cases, perhaps in most cases, to allow fair-use is to fail to encourage people to release their work. And if people don't release their work, there is less free material available. I get that part.

The part I don't get is when images can't or definitely won't be released. For example, editors used to try to delete images taken inside concentration camps during the Holocaust, because they're not old enough for PD and obviously didn't have releases. In cases like that (and Madeleine's eye fits this category for other reasons), declining to use the image as fair use does not create an incentive for anyone to release it. Therefore it is simply lost for Wikipedia's readers. No one benefits that I can think of. Everyone loses.

One argument I've heard is that using fair use makes things harder for downstream users. But we do allow fair use, so that argument falls at the first hurdle when it's applied to particular images. Also, no one has ever given an example of a downstream user who might be damaged by our use of something like a Holocaust image.

Any light you can shed on this would be much appreciated. It's an issue that has caused enormous bad feeling between editors over the years. I've always been concerned that it isn't based on anything solid, and that people are basically falling out over nothing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Countries like Germany do not have the Fair Use provisions in their copyright laws; you can still get a license from the copyright holder to distribution but what US fair use law doesn't exist there (and to be clear, I'm not pulling Germany due to the Holocaust connection, it's just the clearest example). As such, there, you cannot use material under the concept of Fair Use defense. Since the Foundation wants the work to be distributed as far as possible and let people distribution variations of that work (with proper contributor attribution), any user that wants to do this with en.wiki content in Germany will have to strip out all non-frees from the work, and if our work too heavily relies on non-free, this can make the actual content difficult or impossible to use. This is why the Foundation wants a free-as-in-thought work , to avoid any issues with copyrights in the first place so that anyone in the world can reuse and modify the work. Mind you, this should be taken as a ideal goal - the mere existence of the Resolution clearly shows its a virtual target but not one they expect the various projects (save Commons) to meet. But we should always be reaching towards that goal, minimizing non-free to the most essential images and uses to understand the target. This is the entire point of the eye picture - you had a good image of the eye as part of the profile , and as long as the resolution (displayed and/or stored) version of the profile picture was increased, which is an allowed approach, then there was no need to have a separate image for just the eye, it just requires the reader to scroll around a bit to see that.
And a point I stress again: WP is not the only source in the world; we are meant to be the iceberg, to guide the reader to other material where the coverage can be more extensive and not limited by the Foundation's goal, and not the equivalent of the Library of Alexandria. Is there a website that has a bunch of Holocaust images or a good book or other resource? We can point the user towards that, and include just enough to allow a reader to understand the topic (meaning some pictures of the ordeal are going to be appropriate) - and point to those resources for a larger appreciation of the horrors of the Holocaust; same applies to any other topic; for McCann, I'm sure there's plenty of external sites covering the search for her and the case at large and there's no reason we can't link to those; we just can't hold everything internally due to both copyright and being a tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly a month left, Donnie.[edit]

Don't worry, I've had my fill of Darko edit wars. Just curious why you think avoiding the precise time is best. I can't say I understand the significance to the plot (if any), but the precision of the number made it a memorable and intriguing part of the film (if Google's any indication).

While I appreciate you making the claim technically accurate with "a specific time", doesn't that beg the question in readers?

Won't argue it hard. Just my two cents. If you revert yourself, I'd appreciate it. If not, no big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

The exact time is unnecessary to the reader, but that Donnie knows the exact time, as this is the motivation of the events just prior to the creation of the funnel since he knows he has a deadline in those last few hours, as opposed to a vague "something happens on the 28th day". --MASEM (t) 15:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reader might better comprehend what time of day it is when "only hours remain". Seconds and minutes, not so important. They can reasonably assume a Halloween party is after dark, but dark is from about 5 pm till 6 am at that time of year.
Of course, we'd have to also mention he woke up at 12:50. Again, if hours don't matter, no biggie. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

Reverting[edit]

Hey about your edits i thought your were removing content without a good reason so i'm sorry i kind of new here.--Crazy131 (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was basically trimming the entries down to how most other competition-based reality shows do it. All the extra deals (the specifics of the challenge as they actually occurred) are generally left unsaid unless it is a critical factor on the overall show production. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King of the Nerds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

Batman: Arkham Origins video[edit]

Hi Masem, there is a discussion for deletion of File:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv that may be of interest to you as as a major contributor to game related articles. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I regret that. Your arguments are nonsense btw. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday wishes![edit]
Masem, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!

I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :)

  • Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

You've got mail[edit]

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.

About your input ...[edit]

Hi, thanks for your input at Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Reaction (sculpture). But I think you may not have said exactly what you intended to. There's obviously a missing "not": "Just being donated to the city does make it free of copyright". And when you said "all but one image can be used in the article", did you mean to say only one image? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Holiday Turkey![edit]

What's a holiday without a funny-tasting chicken? Most flavourful they are soonest after glaring directly into the twinkle of your eye.

Gobble gobble! Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comics[edit]

Since I'm here, can I ask you a holiday favour? Can you keep an eye on the Comics article? There's a POV pusher who has repeatedly removed sourced material and added a ton of unsourced and UNDUE material, apparently copy & pasted from the (mostly unsourced) British comics article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even after asked to discuss the content on the talk page, the editor has instead chosen to editwar—even removing content and sources that I'd added since that supported portions of the editor's POV. His excuse?—"Despite the sources I have given demonstrating that the medium in fact developed [in England]?" One of his sources being a fluff piece in a newspaper, which was added at the expense of a source for the same information from a book that put the information in its proper historical context. Even leaving aside the POV and the deletions, I think a quick look at the diffs will show that the quality of the editor's edits is extremely poor—and they're willing to editwar over it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

WP Television in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Television for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DotA2[edit]

Hello Masem. I have provided a source via first and third party stating that DotA2 is an ARTS, as stated by Icefrog/Valve. If you do not have a first party source from Valve stating otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would not changing my edits, as I have followed the guidelines for editting. There is no reason to start an edit war just because I am correcting MISINFORMATION on a wikipedia page. DotA2 is an ARTS, as it is a sub-genre from an RTS genre and game Warcraft 3: TFT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerupper5555642 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the editing war you have with me. I made a legitimate change to improve the information on an article, and you keep hindering that progress, for reasons selfish and not pertaining to the information as released by the source of the IP holder. If you do not like what DotA2 is do not try and change it to suit your own needs. I am not saying the founder if Valve is Barack Obama, which would be false, so do not call DotA2 anything but an ARTS, which would be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerupper5555642 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steam ~ GA?[edit]

Hey Masem, I hope you're having a happy holiday season. Since I put Steam up for peer review, have applied some massive organizational and content changes and have received support, I would like to submit the page for a GAN. However, since you are another major contributor to the page, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Do you believe the page is ready for a GAN? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to try. There's a few gaps Id consider missing for an FAC but should not Bea GA issue. --MASEM (t) 03:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good man! Thank you! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

  1. ^ a b Xbox Overview. "Introducing Xbox One". Microsoft. Retrieved 2013-06-09. Cite error: The named reference "XBox" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Lance Ulanoff (2013-05-23). "Report:watchyourheartbeat". mashable. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
  3. ^ Lance Ulanoff (2013-05-23). "Report:watchyourheartbeat". mashable. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_12&oldid=1168304006"