User talk:Masem/Archive 24

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

Crying wolf?[edit]

It's not the elephant that matters, it's the bear. [1] [2] [3] – Sca (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again, all WHO said it is at a high level, and in fact it is not a time to fear [4]. The problem is the media (and the markets) is reaction on fear of how fast and seemingly lethal it is. (and that is a concern). The problem is that the media are not medical experts. WHO is, and they're urging a lot more caution and less panic here than the media wants, and that's where our position should be, until the point it ticks over to "pandemic". --Masem (t) 19:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Command (series)[edit]

This is not really related to the non-free use issues being discussed on Explicit's user talk page, but rather is more about the page move itself. This was an article about a game called Command: Modern Air Naval Warfare ; the article was approved via AfC back in 2013 so I'm just going to assume it meets some notability guideline. The recent page move to an article about a "series", however, seems a bit odd and perhaps unnecessary. I'm not sure why a new article titled "Command (series)" wasn't just created which then would contain some content, etc. of each game in the series.

If Command (series)#Command: Modern Operations is actually a separate game in it's own right and not some expansion expansion pack so to speak, then it could be treated as a separate entry in a separate article (even if it's not notable for its own stand-alone article) about the game series without moving an already existing article to a new title. Perhaps the series needs to be independently notable for an article to be created about it; however, it seems that if one game in the series is notable on its own, then the series would be basically a prose-type list article which is probably also not OK to create. It seems that the page move was made to accommodate content from a AFC-declined draft. If the draft had actually been approved, then there would've been no need for a page move and a separate article could've then be created about the series, right? Are page moves like this common for video games? It seems a bit problematic, especially since the series article doesn't not or at least is being claimed to not really be about a series. So, I'm wondering if the move itself might be something warranting further discussion since it was essentially just a bold move.

Can you see what the title of this version of the article was? Was it "Command (series)" or was it something else. Given the title of the article after the move, the main infobox seems like it should be for the series as a whole, not the first game of the series. A separate infobox could, I guess, then be added for each title in the series, but the main infobox should be for the series, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C:MO looks like a separate game (not downloadable content to the first) but itself is not notable at all. Unless its known that there are plans for more games beyond this, it would be better for the article to be titled after the notable game, information on the sequel can be left in there with a redirect to that section (eg no information has to be lost). --Masem (t) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I've started a discussion about this at Talk:Command (series)#Page move to see what others think as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Joe Coulombe[edit]

On 2 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Joe Coulombe, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hi Masem. I'm looking for some advice since you're an admin. The user Tia Canita (talk · contribs) has been somewhat problematic for a long time due to the fact that English is not their first language and they are prone to make constant grammar errors. They particularly edit articles related to The Walking Dead (a subject you're familiar with). This is an issue, because they tend to make large edits including writing character biographies and episode summaries. They will add paragraphs and paragraphs of text–which are filled with run-on sentences, incorrect gender pronoun use, and generally bad grammar that essentially has to be rewritten from scratch by another editor. They were warned about their incorrect pronoun use almost two years (please see their talk page); I warned them again in February 2019 and again in October, but the problems still persist. I have to ask, is this a valid competence is required issue? I've had to completely rewrite the past two Walking Dead summaries here and here. The user has also written a summary Stalker (The Walking Dead) which I know will have to be completely rewritten. The user Tobi999tomas (talk · contribs) has also had to deal with Tia Canita, more so on the character articles, here's some examples: [5][6][7][8]. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to argue that someone that writes poorly or with bad grammar be necessarily called out on that; I know my own first pass writings on WP are not great (not as bad as those), but we're also not talking broken English as if someone is writing from a auto translator. The issue is if you have tried to work with the editor to address these, or are they fighting back in terms of edit warring against your fixes? You could ask for potential remedy if they are being uncooperative, but you really can't do much just because of initially poor but fixable grammar. --Masem (t) 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are definitely not edit warring or doing anything like that. There is, however, a lack of communication or anything that shows improvement. Like I said, they were warned almost two years ago about incorrect gender pronoun use and I subsequently warned them again in February and October 2019 about this, but they didn't respond and the same issues still exist. Here's a recent example from the "Stalker" summary before some pronouns were fixed; it also shows the run-on sentence issue and weird grammar/word choice. My observations are marked in brackets.
Gabriel asks him (referring to Gamma, a woman) to show her (referring back to Gabriel, a man) the location of the cave on a map but Rosita punches her grave (punches her grave, what?) and calls her a liar before asking to be locked in a cell, when they go to question her, Rosita tells her that what is left in the cell is the man who killed her son's father (massive run-on sentence that is very confusing).
I know this is a tricky line to tow, but it just creates such a burden on other editors for us to clean-up after all their edits each time. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't being responsive at all, that is something that can be brought to an WP:AN, but make sure to compile diffs to show attempts to work to engage them in advice and collaborative editing. I can't assure that anything will be done. You may want to try saying, something to the effect "I've been trying to work with you, but I fear I may need to elevate this to WP:AN if you do not collaborate and follow our suggestions or show that you understand what we're saying." Give them a warning and benefit of doubt, and if THAT doesn't improve, then you have a good case at AN. --Masem (t) 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reached out to them again (before I saw your last message) here. They responded on my talk page, and it's essentially "I'm sorry my English is terrible, so just fix it." I have no idea what they are trying to say in the second section they created. Do you have any further advice here? Do I have a WP:CIR case or do I just have to grit my teeth and deal with this? Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I admit I don't know how to proceed here. We don't stop people from participating if English is not their first language, but we do not want them leaving massing editing messages to be cleaned up by others behind. I don't know where you can ask for other advice , perhaps at WT:CIR or check its archives. --Masem (t) 18:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think when I have the time I'm going compile some stuff and post at WP:AN and see what others think. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I've noticed you've now had first-hand experience with Tia Canita with this edit. Now, imagine having to do that after basically every edit they make; it's not fun. I posted my concerns at WP:EAR almost three weeks ago, but I didn't get any replies. None of his errors have improved in any way; he still writes in run-on sentences, odd grammar, and still mixes up gender pronouns despite it being pointed out two him two years ago. Do you think posting this at WP:AN is viable now? Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not getting any feedback at EAR , then I would go at WP:AN, and be calm about this, explaining the steps you've done and unsure what to do as past dispute resolution hasn't helped but also this isn't an exactly straightforward case. You can certainly use the last edit I had to do above as an example (pointing out how "michonne" was "he/him/his" in most of that original summary which is really really bad). Goal is trying to find an amicable solution, but that requires this editor to compromise and that hasn't happened. --Masem (t) 15:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor with an attitude problem[edit]

Hi Masem,

I wouldn't normally do this, but would you mind taking a look at the No Time to Die talk page? There is an editor there who I think has a really poor attitude—a case of "I know best, so I don't have to be civil or respect others". I mentioned that if he continued with the attitude, he could wind up at ANI, but he was dismissive of it. He has made it pretty clear that he thinks he's entitles to do whatever he likes, even if it means ignoring a consensus. I know this seems like a tiny issue in the grand scheme of things, but a) he's an experienced editor and should know better and b) I'm currently dealing with the same attitude from another, unrelated editor, but this time turned all the way up to eleven and it's maddening. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit war against the MoS and play the passive-aggressive card, people will be dismissive of you. And to complain about civility when spouting things like "...act like a decent human being, but you instead opt for hostility and come across as an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" is, frankly ridiculous. But that doesn't matter. You've been so obstructive and shown so much OWNership, I'm out of there - you can have it all to yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Quote added - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the talk page and I have to agree with SchroCat here that while SchroCat may be a bit aggressive with language, they are right that you're not making edits that follow established MOS or how films are normally described. SchroCat's been on WP for a while, they know the ins and outs of how mainspace pages should read so they're trying to help. --Masem (t) 14:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an excuse for his attitude. I'm not disputing the need to observe policies and practices, but I don't think it's particularly helpful to refer to other editors' contributions to discussions as "dross". I'm well aware of how constructive an editor SchoCat can be, given how he worked with others on the Skyfall and Spectre articles, but I also noticed that the tone of the discussion changed as soon as he threw his toys out of the pram and left in a huff. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" and not "a decent human being". I didn't realise I was talking to a model of civility or challenging the ownership of the article when I pointed out the sloppy commas and MoS breaches, but it's all yours now. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion[edit]

Would you be willing to assist in an old GA review? Namcokid has been too busy to complete the GA review and i'm sure he wont mind if the review was completed elsewhere. i'm already moving onto other articles like Lumines II and Lumines Live in efforts to making the entire Lumines series a good/featured topic.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 14:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Happy First Edit Day, Masem, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 17:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for McCoy Tyner[edit]

On 7 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article McCoy Tyner, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Marnie (dog)[edit]

On 9 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marnie (dog), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Guy[edit]

Article still says he died March 9, citing The Periodical. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the nature of that source, I remain dubious on how they "heard" of his passing as there's no collaborating sources anywhere. Twitter is repeating Wikipedia, so we may be in a wrong cycle here. --Masem (t) 14:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also,I just looked at the history of Guy's mainspace page and see that one editor claiming to have a mutual friend confirmed his death. Assuming this is true, and given Guy's significance, we should have major academic society sources covering it soon enough. --Masem (t) 14:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for sure. I was just pointing out that the article apparently is wrong. Sorry I didn't make that clear. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coronavirus banner[edit]

Thank you for creating, or at least pushing for, the ITN coronavirus banner. You are doing great work. BirdValiant (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar[edit]

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
To User:Nixinova and User:Masem for suggestions (see (1) and (2)) that led to the deployment of a small banner on the Wikipedia:Main page which links to multiple topics related to COVID-19. ↠Pine (✉) 18:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Oculudentavis[edit]

On 18 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Oculudentavis, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A roll of toilet paper for you![edit]

Toilet Paper Roll
For the idea and contribution for putting corona pandemic in the main page, in what might be the biggest format change there in a few years. Juxlos (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Edwin Catmull[edit]

On 19 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Edwin Catmull, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Asteriornis[edit]

On 19 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Asteriornis, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

xbox series x[edit]

The Xbox series x official Wikipedia page does not have a photo of it. I would like you or someone else to publish a photo that is deemed "acceptable" since mine does not fit that. If it was copyright, I took the photo it was not from the official web page. But please next time you remove it just DM me the problem as it was not very justified why exactly it was taken down. (but seriously there is no photo containing an actual photo of it its not fake). Jerry Steinfield (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because we will be able to take a photo of the console once it is released or available at a trade show, any photo taken from Microsoft's press kits or websites will be copyrighted (non-free) and cannot be used because a free photo can be had per WP:NFCC#1. So we can't have any photo at this point. --Masem (t) 04:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full case name[edit]

Hello Masem, I see you reverted my edit to Timbs v. Indiana. When you look at the Supreme Court's case database, it also includes "Petitioner" in the official title, even though it is already implicit in the fact that their name is listed first. So why shouldn't it be part of the full case name on Wikipedia? --MrClog (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good point. Only recently has the Supreme Court been adding "Petitioner" explicitly to full names and most of the cases seem to ignore it because its an obvious factor (any names before a "v." in a case at the Supreme Court are the petitioning parties) I've asked at the infobox scotus template to see if that should be added or not. --Masem (t) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Games amendments[edit]

Hi, the way you keep reverting back the 'text adventure' page is just vandalism. The idea that modern interactive fiction is narrative-driven with no puzzles is completely false. This is a nuanced point, but nearly every piece of interactive fiction that is made with modern tools *in text adventure format* has puzzles that completely block the story if you can't work them out. There are other types of interactive fiction built with tools like Twine where they are narrative-driven, but that is not the relevant point here. It seems clear to me that you are not even someone who really follows the genre, the link that you are adding as evidence is not by anyone of any significance in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.213.10 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not what it said, but that editors were erasing a source without considering it at all. WP is source driven so we have to go by what sources say. That said, I just looked up to see what could be added and I think I see a few things. Its just that erasing sourced material and adding unsourced claims is a no-no on WP. --Masem (t) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but still not quite true. 'A new challenge' implies some alternate type of puzzle-making, but choice of action was done in the 80s even in games which were called text adventures, like Level 9's The Secret of Adrian Mole. I'd be interesting in knowing some games that present a different type of challenge. I think the point is more that where interactive fiction emulates reading a novel, it presents something different? But even then there were CYOA books in the 80s. Also text adventures weren't replaced by graphic adventures, but by point & click adventures, as in the 80s 'graphic adventure' was also a term for 'text adventure with graphics'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.213.10 (talk • contribs)

The sources I add talk about novel ways of challenging the player, like figuring how to talk to the NPCs in an IF, so the puzzles aren't finding the key to open the door but to understand the language of interaction (Which Inform's abilities can help with). The point I think is that where text adventures are always throught to have puzzles, IF aren't as required to have puzzles; its interactivity, and that often involves some challenge to the reader, but sometimes its also "dumb" interactivity, to make a choice and move on. We just need more sources to go on from there. --Masem (t) 22:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Bill Rieflin[edit]

On 25 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bill Rieflin, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 14:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TWD Plots[edit]

I do not understand what is your problem we can not put the arguments that affect you ... what bothers you what is your problem? ... if you do not like TWD articles tell me ahead of time I do not have problems.Tia Canita Talk 11:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you on your talk page. On Wikipedia, all plot summaries (regardless of show) are to be concise. TV episodes should be under 400 words. All those TWD plot summaries exceed that, so the tag is there to let readers and editors know they needed to be trimmed down further. Those tags must not be removed until they are trimmed down. --Masem (t) 04:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Curly Neal[edit]

On 27 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Curly Neal, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TWD Season 10 Finale[edit]

Hey there! Sorry to bother you but I was wondering about the reverted edit I made on The Walking Dead's season 10 page. In the article I listed, one of the exec's mentions that the season finale is now episode 15 with the real season finale now being aired as a "special episode". So should we list it accordingly to the new switch or keep it the same?

Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, as that may put the episode outside the "emmy qualifying" 2019-20 season, so they want to qualify it as such. I've made the changes on the article to explain that. --Masem (t) 22:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:VG[edit]

Regarding this summary ([9]). Could you link me to the previous discussions where consensus was formed to add this? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the advice built into {{Infobox video game}} related to "platform". --Masem (t) 23:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Krzysztof Penderecki[edit]

On 29 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Krzysztof Penderecki, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. qedk (t 心 c) 07:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for David Schramm (actor)[edit]

On 30 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Schramm (actor), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Broken age logo.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Broken age screenshot.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Ellis Marsalis Jr.[edit]

On 3 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ellis Marsalis Jr., which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Bill Withers[edit]

On 3 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bill Withers, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 22:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q1 2020[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2020, the project has:

Content

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

ITN recognition for Juan Giménez[edit]

On 6 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Juan Giménez, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Honor Blackman[edit]

On 7 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Honor Blackman, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Talk:A God Walks into Abar.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dune 2020[edit]

Hi Masem, If you are sure about reverting Stephen McKinley Henderson's casting in Dune (2020 film) you should also revert his casting in Stephen McKinley Henderson where from I got this information, assuming it being correct. NeonPuffin (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NeonPuffin (talk · contribs) It is not about Henderson in the film, we know he is, but his role has never been revealed. Everyone presumes it is Hawat because of 1) one of the few main characters not yet affirmed and 2) common in appearance per book description, but WP can't work on those assumptions. --Masem (t) 15:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Masem (talk · contribs) You are stating the obvious Masem, but thanks for tying that second loose end. NeonPuffin (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mirror[edit]

I saw your undo while I was working on a section for the Talk page. At first I couldn't find the link you mentioned:

Undid revision 950542903 by Thnidu (talk) link already int he article, right in the first section

When I opened the whole article in edit mode and searched for "List", I found the link— in the infobox. Tbe infobox can be considered part of the first section, but it's better to call it the infobox, to avoid muddling the trail for the searcher.

(Apologies for topos. My cat is lying on my wrist.) --Thnidu (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link to List of Black Mirror episodes is right there under "Episodes" section. --Masem (t) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Music[edit]

Ramin djawadi name added as he is the series composer Shince Steve Thomas (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The {{infobox television episode}} uses the "music=" parameter for a single featured song, not to name a person. There is no space in that template for the composer as it is assumed, like positions like executive producer(s) and similar, they remain constant for the series and are covered on the main page. --Masem (t) 05:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor compromise[edit]

Well so far, overall, your "Left game by raising sail" is working better than all the other options were. That's at both WaW and EoE articles. It's not my first choice but if your option keeps working I'm happy for the stability. We'll know more on Wednesday/Thursday. Thanks for that option. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XCOM: Chimera Squad nominated for DYK[edit]

Hello. I've expanded the article and nominated it at Template:Did you know nominations/XCOM: Chimera Squad. I listed you and I as the authors (in that order) and already handled the QPQ. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pyre video game logo.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional character redirects to lists has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Fictional character redirects to lists, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You move quickly ...[edit]

I have to say, I'm impressed that you had the "Decoherence" synopsis up within minutes of the episode finishing.

Also, I have a wild theory for you: I don't think it's a copy of Dolores' pearl in Charlotte's host. Almost everything she has done so far has been completely out of character for both Charlotte and Dolores. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I make notes as I am watching and then it is just a matter of wordsmithing down and confirming a few things (like, I didn't catch initially the damaged host core was from Martin until I checked online). --Masem (t) 02:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used to do that, but it spoiled my enjoyment. And I would miss details, like Martin's pearl being put into the simulation. It's probably why I found season 2 a bit hard to follow. Of course, I also have a bad habit of reading too much into things at times—my theory is that it's Teddy in Charlotte's host, so I have to be careful not to over-emphasise trivial details in write-ups. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'Spree'[edit]

AP is now using the word "rampage," as in "Canadian police say 22 victims after rampage in Nova Scotia" (headline). Do you think "rampage" would have been too flashy for ITN? In retrospect, "mass killing" doesn't exactly fit, since the killings occurred in multiple locations over two days. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rampage" seems very wrong but I see BBC, CNN and several others using the term too, but then again, back to MW, " a course of violent, riotous, or reckless action or behavior" is apt. [10]. We also have List of rampage killers which is defined with "A rampage involves the (attempted) killing of multiple persons at least partly in public space by a single physically present perpetrator using (potentially) deadly weapons in a single event without any cooling-off period." which is what this is. So it does fit. --Masem (t) 13:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at WP:ERRORS. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I pointed out "Rampage" over on the move request for the article itself . --Masem (t) 15:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. Maybe you can help this editor at MCQ figure out what to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Schrader[edit]

You are invited to comment here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Dead[edit]

Hello, user Masem. We had a problem here. Me and another user Alex21 have argued about the situation about the tenth season. Should be the final episode still be as the 16th episode and the season finale or not? He argued about that AMC already said that the season is over, so the finale is not part of the season anymore. In my opinion, when they literally said on the website for The Walking Dead on AMC that "Season Finale Later This Year", then it's still part of the season and that means the fifteenth episode is not concluded the season. What is your opinion about this? Thank you for the answer. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: User talk:Tobi999tomas#Walking Dead. Quote: "so the current season will end with its 15th episode on April 5". @Tobi999tomas:, if you're going to post to user talk pages, do so properly. -- /Alex/21 10:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in video gaming → in video games[edit]

Hi Masem

I see that back in January you moved many categories from "video gaming" to "video games", e.g.

Your contributions list for that period[13] shows hundreds of similar page moves.

I was surprised by these moves, because the new title "YYYY in video game" is confusingly similar to its subcat "YYYY video games", e.g. Category:2007 in video games and Category:2007 video games.

In the sample I have looked at, I haven't see any of them being tagged for a CFD discussion. Please can you give me a link to the CFD discussion9s)?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

There wasn't a CFD, it actually came out of a VG discussion on the general pages that used "video gaming" that we agreed to change to "video games" or "video game industry" in article names as appropriate, which I also took implicitly for cats too. I know shortly after I did that that the mass category moved caused a few problems (I wasn't aware that was going to be causing an issue). But the question of similarity of "XXXX in video games" and "XXXX video games" for categories wasn't raised. If there is an issue, it likely is safe to consider a move of "XXXX in video games" to "XXXX in the video game industry" to distinguish these better. --Masem (t) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply, @Masem, but a ping in your reply would have been helpful.
Why was this not proposed at CFD? It's a bit disingenuous to say "issue was not raised" where there was no properly-notified discussion. This is very similar to last weeks's drama at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#Editor_emptying_categories_then_requesting_CfD,_refuses_to_discuss_or_use_WP:CFD ... except that this time it's an admin who made these sweeping changes without following process.
After posting here, I looked at the archives of WT:WikiProject Video games, and the relevant period seems to be covered by WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 147. I didn't find the relevant discussion there. Have I missed something?
Please can you ping me in your next reply? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: That's the right archive: look at the section area "Video gaming"/"gaming" vs "Video games" (Second from last on TOC). [14]. On why it wasn't done to CFD that at the time I wasn't aware that seeking consensus for moving cat names via CFD was required nor (at least as reading it now) that is is required, though I am fully aware there elements of cat moves that I did that weren't the net proper way to make the changes. It certainly not my intent to be making this disruptive as that above ANI case is, and recognize that if I had used the CFD process with the tools that result from an accepted move there there wouldn't have been any issues. If the remaining issue is that the cat names are too close, I'm perfectly fine with a proper CFD discussion (and heck, would start it myself). --Masem (t) 17:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, Masem.
To be honest, that looks like a multiply mass-botched discussion:
  1. Conflation of the concepts of "video games" (the product), "video games industry" (the commercial structures) with the broader "video gaming"
  2. Failure to distinguish between the roles of categories and articles
  3. No use of WP:RM for article moves
  4. No use of WP:CFD for category moves
  5. Category pages move without the necessary cleanup
The suggestion to use WP:CFDS was wrong, because there was no properly-notified consensus-forming discussion for page renames, which would be required to allow use of any of the speedy criteria. There should have been a full CFD discussion.
I am very surprised that an admin would so clearly disregard process. It's not that elements of cat moves that I did that weren't the net proper way to make the change, rather that you completely bypassed all the processes ... and assumed that an unadvertised WikiProject discussion was sufficient to rename lots of pages. That's the old issue of WikiProject presumed WP:OWNership of pages, which was central to the infobox wars, and noted at last week's discussion.
But I really do appreciate that you have learnt from this, an it's mighty relief to find that your very open response is the complete opposite of the lash-out-at-everyone antics of the miscreant at last week's ANI saga. And you clearly do want to make things right. So lets's do that.
I suggest that the best way to proceed is a full CFD discussion. I have a few tools which make it significantly less painful to create the mass CFD nomination which this will need, so I am happy to build the nomination.
I think that the best option is to rename back to the previous titles: "YYYY in video gaming" etc, per Category:Video gaming. That's what I will propose.
However, you seem to prefer "YYYY in the video game industry". As above, I think that's a bad idea, because it's a significant narrowing of scope, but if you want to make the case for that then I will facilitate it by listing it as an "Option B". Do you want to do that? Any other titles you want to put on the table at the outset? (More may arise in discussion, but the discussion is easier to follow if the major known options are listed at the outset).
If we work together on this, I hope the outcome will be a stable set of category names with consensus support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Keeping in mind, I fully agree there are times for process in page and category names/moving when they involve topics that touch multiple topic areas. But we're talking here about pages and categories fully bound in the WP:VG project area that no other topic area really has involvement with. Even taking into account the closeness of the cat names "xxxx in video games" and "xxxx video games". I recognize separately that there's the level of "information science" of which keeping WP's larger naming and categorization schemes all well organized is, where the close naming does come into play, something that WP:VG wouldn't necessary "see" as an issue. And to get to a key point: I know now in the future that unless it is a very simple cat move (involving only a few pages), it is better to go through CFD even for speedys to minimize problems because there are bots and tools that do all the renames and cleanup without errors.
But I stress that processes are important but they are not the foundation that WP is built on, per WP:BURO, WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. For example, in terms of moving pages, there is zero requirements to see a RM for it, but common sense needs to come into play. BOLDly moving "Donald Trump" to "The Hair" without consensus would be stupid for multiple reasons. But again, here with the VG articles that were moved, there is no need for a formal RM. The discussion I pointed to, I believed served as consensus-building to show support for moving the article pages as again, only the VG project had any reason "oversight" on these. And in contrast to category moves, article moves (with redirects left behind) have fewer issues with possible errors left behind. Further, we don't have "xxxx video games" article pages to worry about. For categories, arguably the same logic applies, save for the fact that cat moves have several additional cleanup steps that need to be done, and hence better to use the CSD automated tools. But again, CSD is just a process, any admit assuming they believe they have consensus can still do those moves manually as long as they take responsibility for it. (Which here I did, I helped to try to clean up the stuff post-move once it was pointed out to me, not trying to ditch that responsibility).
You shouldn't expect admins to necessarily know this, no admin is required to know all P&G inside and out and often need to refer to such pages before using the mop. (And there's still things about WP cat that I get super confused on when it gets to things like cat diffusion, etc. nor do I want to necessarily know all) In the case of reviewing how to use categories at Wikipedia:Categorization, there's only a brief line at the top that says to use CSD "before undertaking any complicated re-categorization of existing categories or mass creation of new categories." which in the case I was doing may or may not apply by that language (but again: I know better in the future CSD ends up simplifying things). Key is that when something goes amiss, the admin in question is taking responsibility to fix the situation, which I am willing to do. I'm just pointing out that you can't make editors or admins follow processes outside of a few cases involving banning, but you can point out that they are responsible for their actions if they don't follow processes and are unwilling to fix to the process. Admins can still be bold, make non-CSD based category changes that may be simple or the like and as long as they do the hard work that ends up with the same net change that a CSD step would have done, there's little to take issue with.
As to the remedies here: I don't see a reason to move the article pages back as they themselves don't conflict in close naming. Moving the cats back to their original name would not be helpful, and its better to resolve the more immediate close name conflict. Looking at the cats, starting a CSD to move the XXXX in video games to XXXX in the video game industry is a good replacement title using Category:2019 in video games as a representative cat. The reason we wanted to move away from "Video gaming" is that that represents the activity of playing a video game but these cats represent functions and events happening within the industry, so calling it either "in video games" or "in the video game industry" is fine. However, I will also point out that the close naming also exists for film (Category:2019 in film/Category:2019 films)- I can't find any more immediate examples based on media areas, but there may be more. It is completely fair to say to avoid close cat names when we have these year-style articles but it should be type of consistent advice (Again, not fighting the CSD, just making sure if consistency's the goal here...) --Masem (t) 18:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: WP:BOLD#Non-article_namespaces does give a clear warning against boldness in non-article namespaces. The mess created here, (of broken links which took multiple passes to fix), and moves to of a title which even you no longer support ... that's a pretty good illustration of why boldness with categories is inappropriate, especially on this scale. There are a number of issues which were inadequately considered, which again illustrates why this sort of thing needs properly-notified discussions.
Admins don't get special privileges in such matters, but do have a responsibility to avoid disruption. As noted noted above, I have absolutely no desire to treat this is as a misconduct issue ... but please don't try to tell me that this was handled appropriately.
As to the substance of the final names, the long-standing category structure is reflects my understanding of "video gaming" as the all-encompassing term. Category:Video gaming is the parent of both Category:Video games and Category:Video game industry. The direction you want to go would leave us without an all-encompassing set of chronology categories for video gam(ing), which is a different type of topic to the Category:2019 in film/Category:2019 films comparator, because film isn't a mass-participation topic.
Anyway, we are clearly not going on agree on that here, which is why I will open a mass CFD with both options ... as should have been done in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:No, I agree it wasn't handled appropriately, that lesson I learned. I'm just concerned to a small degree that you seem to be suggesting everything has to funnel through RM/CSD when it does not if it is simple enough and there's consensus for it. Which was not the case with my moves, I know now. --Masem (t) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Your ping had no effect. It has to be part of the initial edit. See WP:PING)
The crucial issue is how to determine if there is a consensus. An un-notified discussion at a WikiProject is only ever a WP:LOCALCON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Right, but only until now has anyone said anything against the local consensus; no one at the VG project seemed to feel the cat moves would need anything more. And no, we're not trying to wall the VG garden in, just that at the present the state the only issue I think you are saying with the cats is:
  • The parent cat is "Video gaming" and considered presently the all-encompassing term.
  • "YYYY in video games" and "YYYY video games" are too close in name, and
  • The "video games" in "YYYY in video games" doesn't "match" the current all-encompassing "Video gaming", and thus unsuitable for the close match issue of #2
eg: there's a certain consistency in the information organization for WP that this created a problem with, which we do want to clear up. Maybe this whole situation has reveals that there's been this long-standing inconsistency in the main cat name and the main topic name (if we're using the advice for the topic category), which would cleanly resolve if the top cat was "Video Games" (with all sub-pages and sub-cats of both Video Gaming and Video Games into that). If the top level was "Video Games" and making it the all-encompassing term then point 3 is resolved, as I understand your point.
I'd also point out this also exists up a level at Category:Gaming, whereas that would be better at "Games" for the same reason, with the same logic.
Obviously this needs at this point the larger consensus but this is a potential alternate that aligns the approach used in by a majority of the other entertainment/media fields (eg like Category:Comics in terms of how language and cat structure works) and would be a less "complex" move. --Masem (t) 22:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: the problem with un-notified local discussions is that they don't bring in a wide range of editors, so problems are less likely to be identified. Categories are under-scrutinised, and since these were moved without any notifications, it is unsurprising that they went undetected. (I spotted something, but was too busy at the time to follow it up, and spotted it again today).
Renaming to the top cats to "video games" would not resolve the problem that the category system would then be trying to use the phrase "video games" for both the broad topic and the set of game software. That's an irresoluble problem, and it doesn't apply to cinema where there is a distinction between the topic "film" and the set "films".
The comics category tree is almighty mess, so please don't try using it as a parallel. See e.g. how Category:2011 in comics is a subcat of Category:2010s comics. That's plain perverse, like making "football" a subcat of "footballers".
Anyway, the CFD nomination is now complete, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 27#Video_gaming. Further discussion should be there.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I added this possible option to the CFD area, but please let me know if that should drop into a different subsection , and I will fix. --Masem (t) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps[edit]

(And I forgot to add the ping for you @BrownHairedGirl: right after I wrote this up --Masem (t) 00:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

As the CFD has now closed, and effectively reset things back before what I did (which I hope you saw I was okay with due the issue below, in addition to the consensus), I'd like to ask on the next step I'm planning is proper:

As I found during CFD, we had a now-banned user in 2012 create the set of categories like Category:2010 in video gaming without discussion or input (Many of this user's contributions have been problematic, this adds to the list) At this point, the top level category for the video games area was "Video games" and had been that way effectively since 2007 (after being moved from Computer and video games). There was no "Video gaming" category at this point, so arguably at this point the naming scheme was already bad. In 2017, as what I'm taking as a good faith maintenance action, Marcocapelle created the Category:Video gaming and made it the top level as they then moved several pages and subcats up into that, likely based on the existence of the "YYYY in video gaming" categories. Again, good faith action and no blame at all for the net situation on them as this appears to be trying to bring the category into consistency with others. They weren't likely aware of the problem with the categories created with the banned user.

Because this mess started back in 2012 with the action of a banned users, its why it made sense to just get back to the status quo, but there there's reason to consider if those original categories are at the right names and review the matter at CFD later. I realize this gets back into the argument whether "video games" or "video gaming" better describes the whole of the field but hence why I need time to be able to make sure I can present that argument better.

My question to you basically is that it should not be unreasonable to propose this again, correct? Again: this is in no way going up any time soon, I need to make sure the logic and rationale is there to explain the situation and rationale of "video games" over "video gaming", and I need to make sure the potential concern on the clash of a top-level "Video games" and the "YYYY video games" category can be resolved. I don't think this is equivalent or "undoing" this recent actions as there's additional changes involved, but it is seeking to establish the consensus at CFD that you'd wanted to see from the de facto state. --Masem (t) 00:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I do appreciate that you have asked me about this, given that we have disagreed strongly. Thank you for keeping the collaboration going despite disagreement.
There are two paths you could take now:
  1. WP:Deletion review. The possible grounds could be either that the closer did not weigh the discussion correctly, or that you have new evidence; and in either case that a chat with the closer did not resolve things. There doesn't seem to me to be a case on either point, but it's your decision.
  2. Open a new group CFD after a suitably long gap, to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPping. The length of a "suitably long gap" is not codified, but in my experience it goes a bit like this:
    • the bare minimum times would be one month for a no-consensus outcome of low-attendance discussion of a single category;
    • 3 months for an actual consensus outcome of low-attendance discussion of a single category.
    • Increased times for a clearer consensus, larger set of categories, etc
    • Increased times if the issue has been around the blocks before. In this case, it was the first CFD, but followed your out-of-process moves, so it seems to me that a further discussion should have extra delay: it doesn't help anyone to have unstable category titles.
Note again that's my personal summary of what I have seen as common practice, not a quote of written guidance or policy. Pinging some CFD regulars @Fayenatic london, Black Falcon, SmokeyJoe, and Ymblanter for second opinions.
That's the procedural issues. But substantively, it seems to me that you haven't fully accepted that there was pretty clear rejection of your arguments. Your point about the history of the categories was well-made at CFD, and does't seem to me to have influenced the outcome.
I really don't want to appear snarky, esp 'cos of your good faith in approaching me again ... but since I am here, I do have to say as kindly as I can that it seems to me that haven't really engaged with the four key issues at CFD:
  • That the term you seek for the overall topic is the same as the term for sets of individual examples. That doesn't apply to the other topics you used as comparators: e.g, for "sports", the individual instances are sport-types (rugby union, golf, boxing etc), players, clubs, competitions and so on.
  • That CFD participants strive very hard to avoid ambiguity, and repeatedly prioritise disambiguation in category titles over more commonly-used terminology.
  • That the growth of the video gaming industry doesn't make the industry the whole scope of the topic.
  • That your case relied far too much on assertion, and too little on evidence
It seems to me that if you haven't engaged with those issues, any further CFD is likely to be a be-run of this one, with a taint of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which will be uncomfortable for you to hear.
I have been participating in CFD with varying consistency for 14 years. In my early days, I used to get frustrated that I wasn't allowed to promptly revisit an issue where I thought that the outcome was wrong. But over years, my view on that shifted a lot, for two key reasons:
  • Several times I found that after putting an issue aside into my revisit-next-year folder, when I did revisit it I saw the issues very differently. Sometimes that helped me to make a much better case; other times I reckoned that maybe I had been wrong, or that we were all wrong, or that I was right but would never persuade people. In all cases, the delay helped.
  • When I did renominate soon (with in a few months), the discussion would often consist of the same people making the same arguments, with added grumpiness of the ffs-we've-only-just-sorted-this variety. After a longer gap, new faces are more likely, the old ones have had time for a rethink.
So now I apply to myself a rough rule of thumb that I try not to renominate within 12 months, unless there is evidence that consensus has shifted significantly. That has made me happier, and I think has helped make better decisions.
Sorry this is a bit long, and that some of it may seem a bit didactic. I really am trying to help, and I hope that this does help.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Yeah, I'm definitely not going to delrev this. I have to start the idea anew, not back up to what we there before, and that requires a fresh approach and as you indicate, the more time to give that (which is more time for me to development the arguments better) is best. I do plan to try to address the points of concern and propose the rename of the "YYYY video games" categories if that's a key issue, when I get ready to propose again. --Masem (t) 03:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I would be more confident of this getting to a good place if you had written that you were going to take the time for a rethink of the fundamental issues, rather than developing better arguments for a failed proposal. But that may just be a phrasing issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Yes, step one is rethinking the issues. It will be easier to approach the new CFD (when I feel I'm ready) from the now de facto position the categories are in, rather than trying to go back to this last CFD and explain the changes from that move but I do know what you consider as key issues in terms of what's the right top level name, etc. --Masem (t) 23:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Masem and CC: BrownHairedGirl As someone involved in the original discussion, I find it a bit surprising that this entire CFD started and completed without so much as a line at WT:VG. Reading up in the thread, I understand that this situation started as a lack of notification issue, but two wrongs don't make a right. I can't see how any CFD of this scope can purport to have a stronger consensus when the number of participants at the original WTVG discussion doubles the attendance of the CFD. I think there's a strong case for DELREV here, if I'm being honest. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ferret dropped a note [15]. And per the discussions I've had with @BrownHairedGirl: since and discovering what a mess this situation is due to banned user SNAKE, I'm going to rethink the approach, get VG's input first, then approach a second CFD armed a bit better. --Masem (t) 16:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium, the CFD nomination was completed at 21:54 on 27 April. The notifications included:
  • All 145 categorised tagged[16] by 22:14 (20 minutes after the nomination)
  • WT:VG notified[17] by Ferret at 22:37, 27 April 2020 … i.e. only 43 minutes after the nomination was complete
  • Categories consequently listed[18] by the bot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts at 08:16, 28 April 2020 -- 9 hours 20 minutes after the CFD nomination.
The only required notification is tagging the categories, which as usual I did promptly. The rest is a bonus.
So your case for DELREV is non-existent.
@Masem: your comment about a second CFD armed a bit better is WP:BATTLEGROUND terminology. I seriously urge you to dial your approach back a long way, and re-read my comments above. Please remember that this whole mess started with you making a large series of botched out-of-process moves. Continuing a BATTLEGROUND approach will not end well … and fixating on the role of a banned editor carries little traction, since you raised that issue at the April 27 CFD and editors chose to restore the original titles on their substantive merits.
It seems to me that your approach still has far too much WP:IDHT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Sorry, not meaning to be making it a battleground. I know the areas of concern in terms of why naming the top level "Video games" (rather than "video gaming") is a problem, and I what I meant was that when I have felt I've gathered sufficient supporting resources to support it, then propose it at CFD. Also, no one addressed the issue of the banned editor at all when it was raised (except for comments on that issue, there was exactly one !vote in the discussion after I brought that up), so it is an extremely valid point that I do plan to readdress on reintroducing the CFD, but certainly not as the sole reason to make the changes. --Masem (t) 20:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no one addressed the issue of the banned editor at all when it was raised because the question of who created the categories wasn't relevant to the question of "what's the best category title". Editors discussed the titles on their substantive merits, rather than by worrying about who created them … and you raising the involvement of the banned editor didn't prompt anyone to divert off the substance into personalities.
I hope that if you do a further CFD nomination, you will focus on the substance rather than personalities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I would ask you assume a bit of good faith here that I'm trying to keep to the process (it's why I'm asking questions now rather that going in blindly and making a mess of things again). The deal with the banned users was their editing patters and behavior, not their personality, which poisons what they selected in naming these categories that I don't think anyone has really considered until now (something we've come to discovered with many of this user's edits) And now that we're back to the "de facto" situation, those banned user's edits are now significant again. Also this is about trying to come to a consensus building between the VG project's knowledge of this area, and the concerns of how categories should be named and organized, so its a two-way street that I'm trying to negotiate as well. I want to be better prepared with sources and other information to back the position I have next time and I know the points of concern that you and others raised with possible conflicts on cat names, as to smooth out these discussions when I feel ready; not meant to be a battle but just better justification for where I and (at least what I believe) the VG project would like these cats at. --Masem (t) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I do assume good faith, which I is why I too the time to point out some flaws in your approach. If I didn't AGF, I wouldn't bother replying, because I'd be wasting my time.
I stand by my point that consensus on an issue such as this is best achieved by focusing on the substantive merits of the issue, rather than on the personality of an editor who had some involvement with it many years ago.
Most banned editors don't do everything wrong, so their edits in any given case are not axiomatically problematic just because they did bad stuff elsewhere. So the creation of the categories needs to be examined on its own merits, rather than dismissed as the work of a "usual suspect". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming editor[edit]

Masem, would you help me remember where we report obvious spam editors? I think this one qualifies [[19]]. Thanks. Springee (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)[edit]

Hi! How are you? On April 4, I used your description of a proper way to accept Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as guideline, that you provided at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319#I am fed up with edit-warring against consensus in Eastern European articles 2, & followed the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment by posting Template:Rfc in Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Problem with transliteration of Belarusian geographical names. Could you enforce the 4th way of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, "Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion", as 30 days from the beginning of discussion have passed. Best wishes,--W (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Satifactory video game cover art.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCritic on Doom Eternal?[edit]

Hi,

New to wikipedia so hope I'm doing this right.

I think you reverted my change on the DOOM Eternal page to remove OpenCritic (let me know if that's not accurate though). I wanted to ask why?

OpenCritic is a headline metric in Bethesda's latest Accolades Trailer and was also used in their advertising a while back (which is why I added it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm3xeGxDB-I

Metacritic doesn't capture the percent recommended metric. I think this would be a useful addition to the page.

Can I add it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MomentHeart (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MomentHeart: We generally only use one aggregator for video game reviews and generally standardize for MC because it has the largest set of reviews it pulls from. We know it doesn't have the % recommended but that's a consistent thing we generally do not inclde for video games. --Masem (t) 23:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional element redirects to lists has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Fictional element redirects to lists has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

I just discovered you are an Admin. Where the he$$ have I been? No. I think the problem is you edit too much like a regular non-admin editor. So you might want to look into that! :o) :o) And, I'm not sure someone who has a "...strong interest in video games and television shows, primarily animated television shows" [20] should be an admin. :o) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the Steam (service) page[edit]

Hi @Masem. Thank you for taking the time to look over my additions in the "Discovery updates" section.

I was wondering if we could include the last sentence (without the previous reference): i.e. "Many of the affected developers saw a sharp decline in sales and production sustainability".

I have other references, but most of them are from social media and extensive online discussions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zOeUJtRQaiEYQUxslFU4hMIC6IbNnbz850GEf8IDYxU/edit

Request for information about warning and subsequent redaction of my defense[edit]

Masem, you warned me after someone falsely claimed I had "no source" for factual information I'd stated while participating in a good-faith discussion on the Talk page of whether information was relevant for inclusion in an Article. You wrote on the Administrator Messageboard that I had properly sourced part of the information I'd written about, but: "the stealing from Walmart I can't find anything about. Will deal with that". You then gave me a "final warning". I responded with nothing but a quote from and citation of a Daily Beast article with the information you were unable to "find anything about" and asked for you to please un-warn me and un-redact the information for which I'd now provided citation, so I could take part in discussion on the Talk page. My defense—nothing but a quote from a properly cited mainstream source—was itself redacted. Can you please help me to understand what I did wrong and how to remedy the situation? Thanks kindly, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As @Black Kite: has tried to explain to you, there a comment you made (now redated) that started roughly with your support of including Arbery's full criminal history. Based on the discussion on the talk page to that point, including your past rush to point out Arbery's crimes without sources, and past history as an editor, you should know better inclusion of such is a full on violation of BLP policy, and given that you did not appear to be contributing productively to the discussion on the talk page, Black Kite appropriately blocked you from editing. You basically have presenting your stance on this page that WP needs to show Arbery had priors that are relavant to the case, which WP cannot do even if reliable sources point this out. This has be to be something that comes out of the investigation, or at least should be treated with a lot more respect to all people involved (both Arbery and the suspected shooters) under BLP. The talk page is already tense, and blocking those that are stressing the situation to minimize disruption is a fair use of admin powers. And I've just checked and the page also has discretionary sanctions applied to it, further giving someone like Black Kite authority to take action like that to calm tempers. --Masem (t) 03:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Follow-up to help me avoid any issues in the future – thanks![edit]

@Masem:, I appreciate you taking the time to educate me on all this, and absolutely want to avoid any issues in the future (let alone a warning!) and as a novice user I have some specific questions for you that I believe will help me to do so. You warned me for not having a reliable source – to quote:

Please note I have redacted material you added to Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery that is not sourced that I could not easily confirm. Do not readd such material without a reliable source to back this up (unless it has already been provided in the article itself or the talk page prior). BLP still applies to the recently deceased. --Masem (t) 01:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Were you not aware that I had properly cited/sourced this exact same information in the "article itself" just hours before? And that the user who removed it from the article is the same user whose subsequent complaint about me prompted your warning: Drmies? See revision history here:.[1] So just to recap, for clarity:

  • I edited the Article with information and a proper RS.
  • Drmies removed the information and RS from the Article.
  • In good faith, I discussed the information on the Talk page (Isn't that what one is supposed to do? And, according to you, isn't it unnecessary for one to re-cite the RS on the Talk page if "it has already been provided in the article itself…prior"?)
  • In response to complaints, one from Drmies, and one from Objective3000 that I had no source, you gave me a "final warning" because there was no RS (of course there wasn't, because Drmies himself had removed it from the Article hours before).

What I'm requesting clarification from you about is:

  • At the time you warned me for not giving a "reliable source", did you know that I had already cited one in the Article and that Drmies had deleted it just before complaining to you?
  • Regardless, would you now agree that the RS you warned me for not having had actually "already been provided in the article itself…prior"?
  • Given that, was your warning to me for not providing an RS in error?

I very sincerely appreciate you taking time to clear this up and for helping to educate me on how this all works! Thanks, Elle Tambourine60 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery&diff=next&oldid=955819987&diffmode=source". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Patriot Prayer[edit]

I tried to implement your suggested edit at BLPN[21] right before the discussion was archived. It was quickly reverted. Should I leave this one alone? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Ken Osmond[edit]

On 19 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ken Osmond, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spam editor[edit]

Masem, I recently came across an editor who caught my eye, [[22]]. In the last 24 hours they added over 100 "see also" links that were mostly to Pakistani mfrd firearms. They are a new editor so this mass spamming of links may be misplaced enthusiasm vs intent to spam. Either way, I wanted to ask where this behavior should be noted. Thanks. Springee (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you warned them on their talk page (as I see), so if the behavior continues without addressing that, ANI would be the next place, because that IS disruptive. --Masem (t) 14:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CU972-Final Report[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at talk:Cubana_de_Aviación_Flight_972#Final_report.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looking for help[edit]

Masem, I'm hoping you can help me figure out how to address some editorial concerns I have with another user. Activist's edits caught my eye after they added some non-neutral COVID-19 material to a number of politician's BLP pages. Basically it was a copy paste text saying they had voted against something that would obviously help many people. Those edits were rejected by several editors and ultimately discussed here [[23]]. In looking at Activist's other edits there is a repeated pattern of adding material that is UNDUE and written with a clear POV against the article subject. That came up here [[24]] and here [[25]]. I think all of these edits were made in good faith but that doesn't make them good edits. When I've tried engaging with Activist on the talk pages I get replies that are about me not about my concerns. See this section and the one below it (Susan_Wagle)[[26]]. I'm really not sure how we can defend additions like this "Republican Dr. Art Robinson, controversial scientist,[37], global warming denialist, and anti-evolutionist also filed for the seat." to Alek Skarlatos's BLP. [[27]]. That's a typical example of coatracking a larger story into a tangentially related article. The same concern I had Susan Wagle earlier this week. I've thought about taking this to ANI but to be honest, other than refusing to follow BRD and follow NOCON I don't think they are actually acting in bad faith. Their bad faith accusations directed at me are not helpful but understandable given I've noted a number of issues with their edits. I noticed SunCrow was seeing many of the same problems. Ultimately what I think this user needs is someone to take their hand and help align their understanding of WEIGHT and IMPARTIAL. Do you have any suggestions? I mean it's clear to me they will not listen to concerns I raise and that just leads to edit wars [[28]] and accusations against me. Any suggestions? Springee (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, try not to follow them around (I don't know if you are) though obviously if there's a pattern that needs to be fixed, that different. Especially if its COVID related stuff, try to point out RECENTISM (some of the diffs I checked would fall into that) to them. Try not to immediately remove material unless it is an outright BLP problem like the Skarlatos part, but do open talk page discussions to explain why it is not good material to add and should be removed. Given the large number of articles, but all appearing to be within the american political theater, make sure they are aware of ARBCOM AP2 and that might be the next place to take it, WP:AE rather than ANI. --Masem (t) 13:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a pattern that needs to be fixed. It's not all COVID-19 related. The more recent stuff is about 2020 political candidates. I did post an AP2 warning to their page. At AE I'm not sure what I would suggest. I mean other than some edit warring any individual edit would be seen as nothing more than a typical content dispute or good faith, poor quality edit. It's just that the same mistakes are repeated again and again. If we had an editors for mentoring section that is where I would want to go. AE just seems a bit too much. Springee (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: So just as a heads up and to courtesy ping @Activist: on this, Activist has emailed me privately about a few things (all about things in your visible edit history and theirs and comments on general concerns, nothing else, no outing or personal attacks, they just wanted a venue to speak privately) and I've commented back. I have noted to Activist that some of their edits aren't good and do run into problems of RECENTLY and of some language issues (weasel wording) and to caution them about these edits. At the same time, what they showed me you do appear to be hounding them (stalking is a bit too strong), those I do see you are worried about where they are coming from with their questionable edits. I'd caution right now about following the around to articles you normally don't edit, given that they have told me they will take my advice to heart about RECENTISM/wording and review policy. So on a good faith basis, I'd just ask just let this be for a bit (say, a month). Obviously, if you see a page you are normally watching and they make a very bad edit say against BLP in your opinion, go ahead and follow the right procedure for dealing with that edit on that page (which I strongly recommend making sure to start a talk page section and explain why its bad) But I would not be then following up by checking all their recent contributions. Hopefully, this situation will make their inputs more appropriate and better focused on the relevant material in the future (they seemed to understand that), and this won't be needed. But otherwise, neither of you have any actions here that I can see just as needed admin action beyond what I'm suggesting now - Springee to let Activist edit in pace and for Activist to use more care in their editors, and hope this situation resolves. If that doesn't fix it, then I think the next step likely is AP2, depending. --Masem (t) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, thanks for looking into this. I'm disappointed that Activist has been unwilling to discuss the actual issues with the edits on even your talk page vs trying to discuss it via email where only one side of the story could be offered. However, I trust your judgement with regards to WEIGHT etc. If their edits keep you happy then I shouldn't have any concerns. To be clear, I haven't been tracking their edits, rather when their edits hit one of the pages I was watching I took note of related edits. Also, I did add pages like Susan_Wagle after I put the NPOV tag on it. Anyway, I will keep my concerns to a minimum and in cases where raised, go for the talk page. I trust they will respond in kind with replies that wp:FOC and avoid accusations [[29]]. Like I've been saying, I think they are a good faith editor but there are issues that should be addressable with simple dialog. Springee (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: Please assume my good faith when I state that I think @Activist: felt hounded and wanted to vent about you without feeling like you respond and make the situation worse (to them). There was absolutely nothing that could not be said on WP that would have gotten them in any type of trouble on civility or the like. Doing it this way I hope has defused the situation in a quiet manner. Assuming Activist is still reading this, I would recommend you both also talk to each other on talk pages if you happen to head-butt on content in the future as I do agree you are both working towards the same goal, just that Activist is learning the ropes, and Springee knows the ropes but may be running a bit eager to make sure to keep pages free of BLP violations. --Masem (t) 19:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: need to reping of typo :P --Masem (t) 19:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Springee (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Mentor Request[edit]

Hello Masem, I was wondering whether you'd be able to assist me in getting The Now Now through FAC and up to featured status. I have been working on the article for almost a month now, and I'd quite like some help through fresh eyes. It's OK if you are unavailable at the moment. Thanks in advance, Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneweirdwikier: I'd be happy to help, I'd just need to know where you're sitting at the moment with the article (I see it's pass the GA stage which helps). --Masem (t) 15:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about how close the article is to FA status, then I actually think that the article is ready for FAC. I recently held a peer review for the article, and I believe all previous issues have been eliminated. If you see any problems, let me know. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 16:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatoneweirdwikier: Okay, a handful of pre-FAC things:
  • Make sure to add alt text on the two images - see MOS:ALT for how to best write these.
  • For the infobox image, I can't add ALT text due to the infobox template. For the body image, I can't seem to make the alt text show up on the image. Is there something I'm doing wrong?
  • The alt= parmeter that's part of the infobox template itself that's right under the image line? :) --Masem (t) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that one. trout Self-trout for that. The thing is, neither of them show up when you click on the image.
  •  Done
  • I'd work through the references and be consistent on linking the names of publishers/websites when they are existing bluelinks (like Billboard (magazine)) Same with the YouTube links in the body.
  •  Done
  • In the infobox collapsed section, I'd un-abbreviate the state names. Not everyone is a US-ian and will know our postal codes.
  •  Done
  • Particularly for the number of database-style sites you are using for chart positions (where you only have access dates) it cannot hurt to go through to touch those sites, make sure the info is still verified, and update the accessdate. That'll help when the FAC reviewer sees that the dates are recent. They will still probably check your sources but still, this doesn't hurt. --Masem (t) 17:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
Perfect. Many thanks. I'll begin working through these soon. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 17:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatoneweirdwikier: on the Alt text, it will only appear (normally) on a mouse hover over the image. If you have the popups extension installed, it will also appear in that (see this screencap). It will not appear in the File: page. That said, you do need to rework those alt texts, they need to be descriptive of what the image actually *is showing*, not what it is, as its meant for blind/vision impaired readers. Again, MOS:ALT has good examples for this approach. I'm not the best at these, but like for the album cover, it might be "A stylized distorted greyscale drawing of a young man in a punk outfit in a sitting position playing a guitar, overlaid on a colored shadow of the image and a colored background". --Masem (t) 15:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for clarifying. Let me go and rewrite them. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done all. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 20:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatoneweirdwikier: Oh at this point nothing that I know of, you've done as much prep work for this. FAC will find stuff, but having the copyedit, all these other little details checked will help smooth it out. You should be good to go to start the FAC process. --Masem (t) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I'll make the nomination when I have the time. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 05:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been nominated. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 06:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination failed. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations | Current article to work on 07:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for XCOM: Chimera Squad[edit]

On 28 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article XCOM: Chimera Squad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sid Meier prototyped the interleaved turns system in XCOM: Chimera Squad using a game engine that he had developed over a period of around twenty years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/XCOM: Chimera Squad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, XCOM: Chimera Squad), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

about an article.[edit]

Hello my friend. Amin Aslani has no notability so the article about him must be deleted from English wikipedia.He is not a famous people in iran too.Thank you very much.پخش مطلب (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Marcus Hutchins#Conflicting information[edit]

"Everyone we can collaborate": should this read "Everything we can corroborate"? 2605:A601:AB42:5B00:A165:5704:A201:2FA8 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tend to make stupid word substitutions (typos/spoonerisms/etc) like that in talk pages --Masem (t) 03:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spoonerisms are fun! I see you fixed one of the words now, but not the other...? 2605:A601:AB42:5B00:A165:5704:A201:2FA8 (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Video reference[edit]

Wikipedia clearly states you can use videos as a referance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Videos_as_references) so why did you revert my changes on page early access.--Visnelma (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visnelma: You can use a video but the video must still meet all the requirements of being a reliable source. A random livestream of some non-notable person speaking to another non-notable person is nowhere close to a reliable source for Wikipedia. --Masem (t) 13:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not two random people talking. The guy on the left is Ahmet sonuç who is turkey’s one of the most notable streamers and the guy on the right is Armağan Yavuz himself. What was written by me was said by him on that video.--Visnelma (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Visnelma: There's no indication of any source that Ahmet Sonuc is a reliable source as a streamer. We normally don't take any streamer as a reliable source no matter how popular they are. And while that might be the person who is making the claim that they were the first to use the early access, we cannot accept such self-asserted claims that are contestable. Anyone, logically, could make the same argument through the same means (a video like this). The origin of the term needs actual reliable sources, not a self-claim of that. --Masem (t) 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Also please add new conversations to the bottom of talk pages as outlined at WP:TALK) --Masem (t) 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who[edit]

Responding to your comments here:

I like the idea, but I don't think it will work in practice. People want to get themselves and their pet topic into Wikipedia because Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is famous, a household name. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, but doesn't allow everything, so getting your subject on Wikipedia confers a sort of honor and validation (even if it shouldn't). There are already plenty of places that aren't Wikipedia that people could be adding this stuff to, but they don't. They're here because we don't allow most of this stuff. If we create a new place that allows everything any one could want to add, such editors won't be interested because it allows everything, and because it's not Wikipedia.

Nocturnalnow's idea here to use it as an incubator for questionable biographies is interesting, but I don't see how it would be that much different from AfC, and it might draw claims that Wikipedia is "segregating" certain biographies away from the main encyclopedia.

For clarity, my stance on systemic bias is that it's real, it's present, it's bad, and that the best solutions (thus far) are to increase editor participation and access to sources so we can add more and better content that conforms to our guidelines. 2601:194:300:130:F405:9C39:A641:A0B2 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key points I put to who's who is that it probably would have to be with deceased people to avoid self-promo, or if we are doing with living persons, then some type of review process before inclusion. --Masem (t) 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than setting a lower bar for notability, which would lead to the issues I noted above, how would it be different from how we already handle it? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First , as a who's who, it would be limited to a short paragraph able each person listed - 2-5 sentences at most. If the person is more notable than that, the page would link to the sister project(s) with larger articles. This then would allow for inter-wiki linking for the names of these people from articles, disambiguation pages, and even redirects to help readers find these people. --Masem (t) 18:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does your plan then require that Wikipedia allows inline outgoing links to this project from within Wikipedia articles? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it would be needed or not. I'd assume that using MediaWiki software that it would could use the same special link formatting to point to the sister wikis as needed for ease of links. Would probably have to tie to Wikidate to autopopulate those too. --Masem (t) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit on Steam[edit]

Hi, I noticed that my edit was reverted because win.gg is not considered a reliable source. The main issue is that VG247's source for its article appears to be win.gg's article.

"According to WIN.gg, a recent Steam update included an alpha version of Steam China, giving us a look at a few of the differences between it and the public, worldwide version."

Other sources seem to cite win.gg as well for this (which may or may not be reliable themselves either)

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/05/24/report-valve-stealth-launches-alpha-test-version-of-censored-steam-client-in-china/

https://www.thegamer.com/steam-china-alpha-client/

https://www.pcgamesinsider.biz/news/71164/chinese-version-of-steam-launches-in-alpha/

Win.gg seems to be the original source for all of this. What should be done in this situation? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not consider win.gg to be reliable, but using win.gg as filtered by a reliable source - VG247 - gives the information implicit reliability, if only to assert that the client launched into Alpha. --Masem (t) 21:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd lead photo RFC[edit]

Hi there! Not sure if you've seen the RFC regarding the lead photo in the "Death of George Floyd" article [30]. Do you have any views with regards to changing/moving the image? If so, are you able to add a comment when you're free? KohrVid (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KohrVid: commented (to keep) --Masem (t) 03:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derek Chauvin.jpg[edit]

Chauvin is still living so your reasons for nominating the Floyd image may not really be 100% applicable, but I'm wondering whether it still would be best to discuss both images in the same FFD since there's likely to be lots of overlapping of the discussion, especially when it comes to WP:NFCC#8. At the same time, the FREER aspect of the Chauvin might be more significant since he is still alive and will likely be involved in a very public trial, where the possibility of a free equivalent being created seems more likely; thus, it might be better to the FFDs separate. This is not a solicitation of a !Vote either way on the Chauvin image, just a question as to whether a combined FFD which deals with both images would be best and only being asked as a courtesy since you started the one about the Floyd image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep them separate because while connected by topic, the rationales are very very different, in part that one is still alive, the other not. And I would argue that no, the mugshot is NOT needed over the exist image that is clear-as-day from the incident case. --Masem (t) 23:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Simrefinery screenshot.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfortable[edit]

Masem, on the Reagan talk page I noted your comment about Jimbo Wales's talk page and the article. On JW's page I noted the comment about KKK in our midst. Personally I think that is a very problematic accusation. I'm also very reluctant to say anything about it. The person who said it is an experienced admin and there is always the fear that if you piss off an admin you might pay for it later. Second, it has a tone of a witch hunt. If you tell Judge Danforth that person isn't a which will he listen or think only someone involved in witchcraft would say such a thing? There are certainly times when people's editorial judgement ultimately decides what has weight for inclusion. Why isn't this such a case? Anyway, I'm mentioning this to you because I find it troubling but I'm at a loss as to the best way to raise a voice here. It wasn't said to me or about me or anywhere I normally look. I still find it to be very disturbing. Springee (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the last part was a possible NPA directed at a specific editor (taking all aspects into context between the two pages) and asked them to redact. --Masem (t) 15:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to get this right: One user in the RfC disputes that calling blacks "monkeys" is racist – that does not make you uncomfortable. Another user, User:MastCell, calls out the user (calling his remarks downplaying the racism as "shameful") – that does make you uncomfortable and you think it's sanctionable? And Masem agrees? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue. Mastcell's comment near the end is a near direct accusation of a specific editor being in the KKK, since I can follow threads on two pages and see exactly where the point of contention is at. That's nearly an NPA. That's an issue. --Masem (t) 17:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the issue is that the editor dared to talk about two manifestations of racial bias in the same comment (note: without equating the two). That makes you uncomfortable whereas editors who reject that racist slurs are racist does not make you uncomfortable. The deliberate misreading and the selective outrage just goes to show how racial bias plays out on this encyclopedia. Calling out racial bias makes editors uncomfortable – downplaying racism doesn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. MastCell Talk 18:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong. This is about what is close to a personal attack, in my view. Nothing about racism or being uncomfortable or anything else, but that MastCell was this close to calling a specific editor out as a KKK member (not the 2008 incident but this recent situation). That's the only issue I care about here. We do not even allude to that. --Masem (t) 18:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not "near-direct"; we literally had an editor who was a KKK member uploaded his own photos of cross burnings. And he was welcomed and valued by a significant subset of the Wikipedia community, while people who objected to his presence were made out to be "politically correct", irrational, or biased against unpopular viewpoints. He even got supportive messages from other KKK-affiliated editors. You can look up the incident if you like; it happened a while ago and the editor in question was ultimately banned, but I raised it because it demonstrates the Overton window in this community when it comes to recognizing and accepting racism, and I don't see any reason to think much has changed. After all, there are still plenty of people making excuses and "both-sides"-ing these issues. I don't need to look far at all to see that. MastCell Talk 18:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not talking about the 2008 case, I'm talking about the current situation at the Reagan talk page in combination with your statement at Jimbo's page. I can tell exact you are *this close* to saying is a KKK member by the line "Anyhow, maybe we could start by committing to reject active KKK members from our ranks, and to basic honesty about notable, well-documented racist utterances from our political idols." and the fact you just came off talking about the debate with an editor that is rejecting the inclusion of this type of information on the Reagan page. You aren't saying it directly, but the implication is extremely clear, which is why I left a warning. --Masem (t) 18:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The implication is not extremely clear. The implication is something you've made up in your head. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly disagree. It's not absolute "block on sight" NPA, which is why I only dropped a suggestion to redact the line, but I can't see any other way to take the combination of statements MastCell left on Jimbo's page and on the Reagan talk page in response to this specific and not walk away with the idea that the second KKK statement is referring to that editor, just not directly by name. --Masem (t) 18:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I can't see any other way to take the combination of statements..." Really? Simply no other way? It's just not possible? Then please stay out of policing other people's language, but you appear to lack the skill to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Masem, I think I've adequately and repeatedly clarified something which, frankly, was clear in my initial post. The KKK-affiliated editors are long-since-banned, but I raised their reception here as relevant context for our community's response to racism and racial issues. I don't know of any current active KKK members among our editor corps, although I can think of a bunch of people who'd make excuses for them if there were any. The issue on the Reagan talk page is separate, but not entirely, because (y)our instinctive defense of bad-faith racism deniers is of a part with our community's instinctive valuation of open KKK members in the past. MastCell Talk 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cocomelon & ChuChu[edit]

Hi. I saw your revert of my recent edit to YouTube. I wasn't surprised I was reverted, though I was a little surprised that it happened even before I finished typing out my message on talk:YouTube. Please read my rationale on the talk page. We currently have two sentences that directly abut each other:

These questions have been raised in the past, as YouTube has had to remove channels with children's content which, after becoming popular, then suddenly include inappropriate content masked as children's content. A current example is the Cocomelon YouTube channel containing numerous mass-produced animated videos aimed at children which has drawn up to US$10 million a month in ad revenue.

I find this very misleading. For one thing, YouTube obviously has not removed Cocomelon's YouTube channel. Secondly, I can find no claim anywhere on the Internet that Cocomelon has ever posted any content that an outside party deemed inappropriate for children. Nor is it clear how such content could be "masked as children's content" since every Cocomelon video is either a nursery rhyme or some less structured type of children's song.

I have seen all four of the articles we link from this paragraph before. Not one of them makes the claim that Cocomelon has posted inappropriate content. That's fair ... but what about the transparency issue? The first three articles that I removed mention that Treasure Studio's website does not give the name of the founder, which remains true to this day, though perhaps the authors of those articles could have found the information they needed elsewhere. At any rate, the Cocomelon article today provides a direct link to an interview with the founder of the company, including his name and place of residence. Therefore I dont think it's proper to mention the Cocomelon channel in that context either.

As you might notice from my edits, I have put quite a lot of attention into the Cocomelon article recently, but I'm not trying to take sides here, as everything I've just said about Cocomelon also applies to ChuChu. Thanks, —Soap— 01:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: Please note that I've changed the text since then, you are quoting an old version.
Why Cocomelon and other channels are mentioned is because they fall under the section called "Child protection". An issue is who are the people making videos for children: their purpose and intent? Some were found to be bait-and-switchers, drawing children viewers and then swapping content. The other are channel like Cocomelon do not have any inappropriate content (as you state) but have no known identity of who runs them or directs them, and thus, what's their ultimate motivation? They also lack an educational factor which worries people as well. So they all fall under the Child Protection section because of their anonymouse owners
But I did change the text to make it clear that Cocomelon and the others are not the same class as the bait-and-switch channels. I separated the thoughts to make it clear that Cocomelon + others are not the same as the bait-and-switch and only make appropriate content. --Masem (t) 13:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary @Soap: as I think I screwed up the first. --Masem (t) 13:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone else would post by now, because I think it looks better when there's more than just one person arguing for a change. That said, I'm not satisfied ... you listened to me and rewrote the paragraph, which I appreciate, but we're still using three outdated news stories to support a claim that is no longer true, and a fourth which mentions Cocomelon and ChuChu but comes nowhere close to making the claim we are attributing to them. I stand by my original edit in which I removed all four of these news stories, leaving the paragraph with its basic claim intact but no explicit mention of these particular channels. —Soap— 20:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soap: I think you're still missing the factor that is still important to the section about Child Protection: parents and others worry about these channels because of the lack of responsible party and intent for why they want to draw their children's interest, not because of their content. That's exactly claims being made by the WSJ and other articles about those named channels. --Masem (t) 20:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Human: Fall Flat[edit]

Why you delete my edit (level added). Why ?. Please Explain in a Simple way. Subhrajit Mohanty (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

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

E3 2020 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Outsiders, Out of the Blue, Waking, Doggone and Carto
PlayStation 5 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Digital download

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia[edit]

On 15 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia[edit]

On 15 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media query[edit]

Hi, Masem. For the past couple of months I've been working on Lost in Translation (film) and soon plan to submit the article for FAC consideration or peer review. I have seen you around as someone with good handling of the non-free media policy and that you listed your name in the FAC documentation as someone interested in pop culture articles such as films. I thought you would be a good person to ask a question about the article.

The writer-director of the film consolidated a book of photographs that she used to recall the visual style she wanted to convey in the film, and she also showed this book to key crew members during production. There is a book source about the film written by its cinematographer that includes several pictures from her book of photographs (see pp. 20–21). Ideally, I believe it would benefit the reader to take screenshots of a few of these photographs and consolidate them into a single image that would appear in the Wikipedia article. However, I am unsure if this would comply with the non-free image policy. Thanks for reading and any assistance you can give. NTox · talk 04:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NTox: one immediate caution on that idea is that each photograph you'd use towards that montage would could as a separate non-free use which would make it more restrictive. You can use photographs from that in that manner as long as you can back up the reasons to include (which judging by the book snippet text I Can see is about the visual elements so you have a starting rationale for some inclusion) but you may have to be very selective. One image for sure, possibly two if they are diffenerent/distinct/opposite looking but still part of this same discourse, if you know what I mean. Any more might be causing an issue from NFC. --Masem (t) 13:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. NTox · talk 16:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act[edit]

Hi Masem. I noticed that you've been carrying the bulk of the updating load with this article (and quite well). I don't know (or don't remember) where you edit from, US, England, etc.. That said, I ran across this article in my Internet travels today and thought you might be able to use it for some of your refs. I think NPR is considered acceptable as a reliable resource - so here ya go.

Best always, — Ched (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: I have a basically equivalent article already in there already (this is a result from the DOJ's panel last year). As a general note, you can use article talk pages and add the {{refideas}} template to drop links to useful articles to improve articles in cases like this. --Masem (t) 00:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters[edit]

User:Masem The 2016 film doesnt disambiguate to the 1984 film because its already mentioned on the lead. But the 1984 article also mentions the 2016 film on the lead, so it is sort of a hypocrisy. Anyway since the leads of both articles mention one another, removed the disambiguation tags form BOTH articles. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: If someone searches for the term "Ghostbusters" in WP's search box, they will land on the 1984 film page. We don't know if that's where they went to land, or if they meant to go to the franchise page or to the 2016 film page (as both are named commonly the same thing) so we provide links. However, at the 2016 film page, which is named "Ghostbusters (2016 film)", there is no way by search if one's search intention was for the 1984 film. It is a fully disambiguated name already and thus no need for a hatnote. --Masem (t) 13:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about Holm at WP:ITN/C[edit]

...ended up in the Facebook acquires Mapillary section. I'd just move it, but it appears to be a direct reply to another comment, and it's unclear which exactly. —Cryptic 14:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS5 image[edit]

Another one File:Playstation 5 ConsoleController.png here, if you can do the proper tagging, etc. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

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

E3 2020 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Outsiders, Out of the Blue, Waking, Doggone, Carto and Lost at Sea

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Science Theater 3000 & Logical Quotes[edit]

Masem: You reverted my changes on the Mystery Science Theater 3000 article after I moved periods inside of closing quotation marks and advised me of WP's Logical Quote standard. I was unaware of this standard and I greatly appreciate you informing me of it! Thanks and have a great day. Connah0047 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Awards for video game art[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Awards for video game art requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 14:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement to MKL article[edit]

Hello. You might be incredibly busy (sure looks like it), and I want to alert you to this discussion, where I think your attention regarding "alternative sentence" vs "plea agreement" could be incredibly valuable. Many regards, Mcfnord (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Hong Kong national security law[edit]

On 30 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hong Kong national security law, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. qedk (t 愛 c) 17:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion you may be interested in.[edit]

Hi, I started a thread in Talk:Project Video Games that you may want to take a look at. You can find it here. If I remember correctly last time this debate was brought up you had some strong opinions which is why I'm alerting you. --Deathawk (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q2 2020[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2020, the project has:

Content

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

03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishdom[edit]

Hi! You may want to see my comment in the AfD, having found several sources. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Earl Cameron[edit]

On 5 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Earl Cameron, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden Joystick Awards has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Golden Joystick Awards has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello Masem: Since you're one of few editors I recall editing with on the same articles, and who was was not part of the tag teams, I'm curious if you see any chance of my ban being lifted if I ask at ANI. As you can see from this complaint last year, triggered by a simple banex edit, it doesn't take much to create a stir, and even asking an editor to fix something ends up in massive discussions. Being the center of attention over what I often consider extreme talk-page trivia, always seems ridiculous, so I won't bother going back to ANI without some support. While I do have a long list of "thank yous" from editors, I didn't think it right to contact any of them.

The reason I'm asking is because, as we know, many recent high-profile RDs are often delayed due to citation issues. Since I've worked on hundreds of bios, all of them well sourced, I always feel I could help. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your tban includes participation on talk pages of bios but that would be one way by providing the list of refs of what needs to be added. alternately, you could sandbox that info and add it to the ITNC. HOWEVER I would strongly check with the admins that placed the ban to see what's allowed in the first place. All I can tell is that you can't edit mainspace but I don't know how far that goes. --Masem (t) 03:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My ban was "broadly construed," which led to violations for asking an editor on their own talk page to review someone's edit, and even asking at AN if I could edit a defective bio. IOW, if I suggested anything bio related on your talk page, all hell would break loose! But thanks for responding. --Light show (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You[edit]

The Oklahoma Barnstar
Thank you for your work with updating Wikipedia after the McGirt SCOTUS case 69.178.8.18 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO NEED FOR SHOUTING[edit]

So I get it, "NON FREE CANNOT BE USED ON NON MAINSPACE", but leaving all caps messages and an officious block warning on on my talk page was not required. This was a complex set of edits, when I received a "conflicting edit" message but I was not deliberately attempting to re-post an image that another editor had removed. I've been editing WP a long time and have never previously received a block, or even a block warning. You could have waited until I was finished performing the edits. merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_24&oldid=1140393996"