User talk:Masem/Archive 27

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

High Score (TV Series)[edit]

Re: this reversion, please advise on how to source that information. Brazilian Netflix (and also on some other South American countries) chose to change the name of the series without explanation or media statement, but they are indeed presenting the show as GDLK, not High Score. See attached screenshot.

Brazilian Netflix presenting the High Score series as GDLK
Brazilian Netflix presenting the High Score series as GDLK

Little Shop of Horrors[edit]

Re: this reversion, please advise your basis for the claim that the source is not reliable. Mainly, I want to confirm that you are not conflating the notable publication Metro Weekly (an LGBTQ publication in the Washington, DC region published online and in print for almost 30 years) and metro.co.uk, which is completely unrelated. The source is a first-person interview conducted by Metro Weekly with one of the principal actors of the LSOH film, and the source appears to me to be credible. Also note that I was reverting a removal of content with no explanation. Perhaps {{better source}} would be appropriate if you can identify an issue with Metro Weekly. General Ization Talk 23:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: Thanks, I was not aware of that and undid my revision. --Masem (t) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Half Life (series)[edit]

please advise why are removing this section "Half-life: The Freeman Chronicles" of the page with the reasoning that the sources are not good enough when other listed titles in the section have similar or NO SOURCES but have not been removed. It seem like there is some sort of bias here?

Beyond Black Mesa has NO SOURCES. I have put many into my listing including many from very reputable media outlets as well as links to the actual films showing that they exist. What other sources would you suggest that would make it ok in your book? Ijduncan (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ijduncan that i was asked by angusWOOF to combine this article into Half-life (series) rather than set up its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijduncan (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, based on the name of the director and your user name, there is likely a conflict of interest in that you are promoting your own film here. See WP:COI. We can't use primary sources and it is far overly detailed for what it is. --Masem (t) 01:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so its too short for its own page according to angusWOOF (even though other series have similar pages) and too long for this page according to you. So what am i supposed to do? Why not edit it to what you feel the length should be rather than keep deleting the whole entry? The series exists just like all the others in the list.
Explain what conflict there is due to me being involved in the project? Its just me adding a note that this series that was made years ago exists and the actors that were involved. Ijduncan (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for FA Review[edit]

I noticed you are listed as an FA mentor. Would you be so kind as to assist in reviewing the article Texas A&M University at the peer review page? Buffs (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Gerda Weissmann Klein[edit]

On 10 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gerda Weissmann Klein, 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. PFHLai (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Hades (game) revert[edit]

Hi Masem, I'm contacting you with respect to this revert. I understand your point, and you are right it was already covered briefly in the Development section. Also, the references I added could have been improved. I still believe there should be something on Reception concerning minority representations in Hades though, since it has stirred debate and recognition, with two awards for appropriate representation (one by the International Game Developers Association). I would like to do another attempt, with better sources and including more minority representation issues (like the black Athena or Ares). Can you please let me know if I'm missing something? And, wouldn't it be better to mention these in Reception rather than Development? As an alternative, I can also add the awards to the award list and expand the Development mentions, without doing a subsection in Reception, although I thought it deserved its own space, since it's something notable. Thanks. Samer.hc (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Player One speculation[edit]

Look, the speculation about "a sequel in the works" is by the author himself, from an old source nearly 2 years ago from a less than speculation source to begin with. To mention it in the body is one thing, so present it as undeniable fact in the lead is simply misleading and smacks of both misinformation and fan-based wishful thinking. There isn't any direct, reliable source to corroborate the claim. Further adding doubt is the fact that major movie databases do NOT even list the alleged sequel in pre-production. You seemingly have been around long enough to know this. 2601:282:8100:9440:E023:B27F:BBB3:F492 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having delved deep into this, even Kline himself admits to speculation, alleging at best TWO YEARS AGO that a sequel is only possibly in "early development", which given the time since then (and the lack of any new sources since then) casts doubt that this has been properly green lit. Please stop engaging in what is called WP:GAMING, and WP:PAGE OWNERSHIP. The fact that we are even leaving that nonsense in the body at all is more than a compromise. Please learn to compromise as well. Peace2601:282:8100:9440:E023:B27F:BBB3:F492 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, those are some heavy accusations right there. Please stay WP:CALM, be WP:CIVIL, and avoid personal attacks. I've posted on the article talk page to further discuss this matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
For your work on the Overwatch articles.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video game article question[edit]

Hi Masem. Since you seem to often work on video game articles, maybe you could look at Earth Seeker and User:!Wete Pentz Bass!/Earth Seeker because it appears that the latter is going to be an attempt by it's creator to be a major re-write of the article. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, but this is a new user who might simply just try and replace the old with the new by copying and pasting everything at once. That might work, but there also seem to be ways it could possibly go wrong. Maybe you could let this user know about WP:VG and suggest they make smaller and more easily assessable changes directly in the article instead suddenly showing up and trying to do everything at once. It looks they're a student editor doing this as part of a WikiEd assisted university class project. I could ask their WikiEd advisor to look at this, but thought you might be able to provide them with guidance more specific for video game articles. The draft appears to be mainly a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article about the game. FWIW, I only came across this because the user kept trying to use the non-free game cover art in their user sandbox draft. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I’ve also asked about this a WT:VG#Earth Seeker. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HL3 reasoning[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted the change of HL3 redirect to Episode 3. Let me explain my reasoning. First of all Episode 3 is also interchangeably referred to as Half-Life 3. This article states that "Long-time Valve Software writer Marc Laidlaw tweeted out a link on Thursday night to a story that sounds an awful lot like what could've been "Half-Life 2: Episode 3" (aka "Half-Life 3")." I was also thinking of potentially redirecting the "Unreleased games" article, since the major aspects of it, Episode 3 and Ravenholm both have articles now that can stand on their own (though the Episode 3 article can use a bit more expansion). Episode Three is most closely related to HL3 since the two would likely have the same plot. If that still doesn't change your mind, maybe HL3 can be redirected to a legacy section of HL2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have a problem with all those being split off to separate articles as it is Valve's unrelease projects as a whole that have overall more notability than any individual one, so they should all be discussed on one page. But as to the point of Half-Life 3, Valve had plans for a full Half-Life 3 way back, then they opted to do 3 episodes to bridge the gap between HL2 and HL3, but Valve being Valve, their vision waivered so it never came. Ep3 should not be mixed up with HL3. --Masem (t) 12:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, be that as it may, I believe Episode Three is independently notable as its own cancelled game which fans are attempting to complete, but I will remove the HL3 and Borealis parts from the article so they can remain in the Unreleased projects article and just focus it entirely on the episode itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a possibility that Half-Life 3 will finally happen in the future. It will most certainly be a different entity and project from Episode Three altogether, even if it does salvage plot elements which were meant to be used for E3. Haleth (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Dallas Howard[edit]

I think the article of Bryce Dallas Howard as potential to be FAC. I did a request of peer review, but came up nothing. I was hoping to find a mentor for it. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement[edit]

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


Ralph Baer[edit]

Hi Masem, thank you for taking the time to review my edit. You removed it, as there is a source missing and I will be glad to provide what I have: I have some pictures showing the stone, esp. the binary stone in close-up and some of the stones in conjunction with the memorial. Also a picture where the described binary-code stone is visible together with some other stones. I cannot deliver a source for the interpretation, but what I have described is factual and does not need a source. Even if the intended message has a different meaning, it will not invalidate what I have described. The result is also reproducible.

I tried to find the "original author" of the stone on google, but to no avail. I can provide you my pictures over iCloud shared drive, as I was unable to upload here (does not accept content due to unclear copyright). The drive link is: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/006Uzg5SJ2ArLLTautb_hxwtQ#wikipedia

ThSt71 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have additional information. The code in ASCII is Muir, as written. Muir is Kelly Muir. https://manchesterinklink.com/celebrating-ralph-baer-day-yes-there-will-be-a-giant-ping-pong-game-to-play/

ThSt71 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ThSt71: That works for the information you wanted to add , though it does need copyediting to be encyclopedic in tone. -Masem (t) 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest an edit on the "Talk" page of the article. ThSt71 (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article mentorship for Euphoria (American TV series)[edit]

Euphoria (American TV series) was recently promoted to good article. Seeing as you have experience in 'contemporary TV shows', and based off of the advice Z1720 gave, I'm seeking you as a mentor for the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

For some time now I've been following the films of Denis V. and have been thinking about moving the Dune film article towards peer review in either GAN or FAC. After looking at you edits there, would you be interested in doing a conomination for the article for peer reviewed promotion? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: yes, I can help on a contamination (co-nomination).--Masem (t) 21:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the sections on Set design and Costume design for the Dune article at this time which others have now expanded. With those two sections added now, I'm inclining towards going straight for a co-nomination for FAC possibly this Friday, if you are still ok on helping as a co-nominator at FAC. How does Friday sound for it? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I'm sorry I drove you crazy all day. Can you ever forgive me?DJBrimstorm (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block creepy and stalking reverter.[edit]

Masem, there's a user that is following, stalking me (seems a new user for his/her number of edits, but joined 7 years ago in reality), and is using my user name's and IP's chronology's to track and revert all my edits, with excuses that don't justify their erasures, clearly non-neutral. I please you to block him/her at least temporarily for now, because I don't feel safe. The name of the user is NarkySawtooth. Thanks. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only can readily see two instances of them reverting your edits, which is very difficult to categorize as stalking. --Masem (t) 12:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can all he/she know all the pages I edited and revert them all in the same exact moment/instant (and with the most absurd reasons)? Is it a coincidence? And they did it again. Please, do something. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Neal Adams[edit]

On 3 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Neal Adams, 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. PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dobbs lead[edit]

Hey Masem, I've been watching Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization because of...recent events...and I wanted to just touch base with you on your recent reverts to the lead. By my count you're at 3, so you may want to change tack and request protection at RFPP among other methods of dispute resolution. I'll keep an eye on the page and protect myself if I see things get out of hand, but wanted give some friendly advice since I expect things at that page will get worse before they get better. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added to the talk page that adding to the lede is premature at the moment (after my second revert). Just that its likely editors will not read the talk page before rushing to add to the top. --Masem (t) 04:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left you in your talk page a message I'd like you to read, Masem. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline[edit]

You previously participated in a discussion about an editor adding something to the Notability guideline. Despite consensus being against it, they put it back in anyway. I am contacting all those who discussed it previously.Wikipedia_talk:Notability#pointless_essay_linked_to_by_its_creator Dream Focus 02:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Naomi Judd[edit]

On 4 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Naomi Judd, 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immersive Sim classification[edit]

Hi, there is a discussion I had started about where to classify Immersive Sims on the article's talk page some time ago. Most of the websites (not authoritative I agree) seem to put them under simulation games rather than action adventure. Bringing this to your attention.

Vinay84 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Tables[edit]

I worked on some more of the Survivor contestant tables today, including Survivor: Island of the Idols, which was almost immediately reverted. Is it even worth it to continue trying to fix these tables if the work is just going to be invariably reverted? Bgsu98 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the tables. They are fine as they are, The Survivor Borneo table is absolutely atrocious looking. Keep everything as it was 2600:1700:3850:1ED0:F0E9:1A0C:70B7:3CA9 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not looking to getting into an edit war, but there are persistent reversions to the voting table on Survivor 42. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibox upright[edit]

Regarding Special:Diff/1087222820, the template doc provides guidance on changing upright/width values at Template:Infobox_television#Calculating_"image_upright". As far as I know, the default for the TV infobox is 1.13 to accomodate title cards (like at Breaking Bad), but since Squid Game uses a poster instead, I figured the default infobox image setting of "1" was more appropriate ("1" is the default value seen in film infoboxes, for example). — Goszei (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Hotel Saratoga explosion[edit]

On 12 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hotel Saratoga explosion, 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 00:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, BUT...[edit]

My queen's current quandary is "mobility problems", not "COVID conditions". Like all publicly infected officials, at least officially and lately, asymptomatic to "mild". But there's nothing on the market to treat or prevent progressive debilitative nonagenarianitis...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Vangelis[edit]

On 20 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Vangelis, 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. PFHLai (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Colin Cantwell[edit]

On 24 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Colin Cantwell, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife[edit]

I do apologize for you having to get dragged into this whole mess on the Rescue Rangers page. It seems CreecregofLife has a history of being argumentative and getting into edit wars. I'm doubtful starting a thread at ANI would make any difference based on the past times it's happened, but it feels like talking to a brick wall, and I'm honestly starting to get tired of it. I'm starting to wonder if it's better to just forget the whole thing and move on, but I also don't want to reward bad behavior. You've always come across as level-headed in our interactions over the years, though, so if you've got a sugggestion in this case, I'd be willing to trust your judgment. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal Tap[edit]

"No, we don't write like this in an encyclopedi)" - of course we do! It's explaining the joke. Your reverts seem rather prissy. Arrivisto (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to explain jokes in an encyclopedia. There's a style and tone we are to maintain. --Masem (t) 16:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Saul Goodman, where it says, "Jimmy ... drives a signature Suzuki Esteem with mismatched doors, a visual pun reflecting on Jimmy's current poor self-esteem at this stage of his life". In other words, a joke is being explained, quite properly. QED. so I propose to restore the Spinal Tap explanation. Arrivisto (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The connection between the car and Saul there is sourced, so that's not an issue. There's no source that discusses the connection between the band name and the medical procedure to that level of degree, so unless a source like that exists, its not appropriate to "explain the joke". --Masem (t) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is Altered Beast not the First 16-bit game in North America?[edit]

Hey why do you need a source for an obvious fact? There was no game prior to altered beast on any home console that was 16-bit Altered Beast was the only game available for the genesis in august of 1989. The other launch titles appeared with its National Release in September 1989.[1] Genesis had two launches in the U.S. - A test market launch in New York City and L.A, on or around August 14th, 1989 and a nationwide launch in mid September 1989. Please dont be Stupid use your brain. Altered beast was the first 16-bit game in north america.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:8CAE:7811:3980:D987 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's synthesis and original research to make the claim that AB is the first 4th gen console game. Just because it was the game that shipped first with the Genesis doesn't necessarily mean it was the first game. That's why you need a source that makes this claim. --Masem (t) 01:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I wasn't calling you stupid by the way. I said don't be. Here is another source AB was released on August 14th 1989 (only game available at this time) the others were realsed on September 15th 1989, when it was released nationwide.[2]--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:8C3D:AE9:6D27:B3FF (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's still original research. We need a source (not a combination of sources) that specifically says AB was the first 4th gen game. Read WP:OR about what we can't do in writing articles. --Masem (t) 02:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic user[edit]

You may want to keep an eye on this user, they have a history of bad edits.

References[edit]

  1. ^ https://forum.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?111913-Games-that-did-and-did-not-launch-with-the-Sega-Genesis-in-September-1989
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=DbFxAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&dq=genesis+september+1989+launch&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG6b66y5f4AhVElmoFHcLLDowQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=genesis%20september%201989%20launch&f=false

Turning Red earnings[edit]

Hey there, sorry for my edit on Turning Red. I'm unsure how Wikipedia handles stating the earnings of movies that did not have theatrical releases. A budget of $175 million with a "box office" of $18.8 million makes it look like a flop, but that's because its box office only accounts for the few international theatrical releases.

Are there any projections for how much the movie may have earned its producers via new Disney+ subscriptions or other metrics? Or perhaps could some disclaimer be added to the box office values to explain the apparent disparity (especially in the infobox)? It confused me, after all. RoverdriveX (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BCS[edit]

Thank u for reverting my good faith edits on Better Call Saul and for explaining the reasoning for your revert. That was very nice of you. But I just wanted to ask your input - do you think it would be better if that sentence was updated to say "brilliant but vindictive and ill" - since Chuck's bullying of Jimmy is a fundamental part of their relationship together? The sentence's fine as is but I thought that'd be an improvement. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section format in Jurassic World Dominion[edit]

Masem, I need you to take a look at the cast section format of Jurassic World Dominion and look at the cast section in diff here. Then go to the article's talk page here to express your opinion about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case 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/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization[edit]

On 24 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. El_C 16:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Littleprince.JPG[edit]

Hi Masem. Do you have any idea why File:Littleprince.JPG is being flagged for a NFCC#9 violation on betacommand's report page for its use in User talk:Lepetitprince.hat. False positive perhaps? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likely reading the first copyright tag it comes across, being the not-PD in US one, so it may be thinking its non-free. --Masem (t) 12:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this. Whatever the reason was, JJMC89 bot also saw it as being non-free and removed it from that user talk page. The file was actually added to that user talk page more than a year ago by an administrator (whom I'm assuming wouldn't have done so if they thought it was non-free); so, I'm curious as to why the bots are just noticing it now. I'm wondering if there's been some recent change (e.g. some change to WP:WikiData) that somehow triggered the bots to now notice this specific file. Do you know if there's any connection between WikiData and files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, its only my guess as there's also a bug in the MediaViewer in the past that would only show the first copyright tag it sees even if there are more permissive ones. --Masem (t) 20:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Do you think that file needs to be tagged with {{Wrong license}} or should be discussed at FFD? The description provided for {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} states that it's not a valid copyright license and that "a valid license template must accompany this tag or this file will be deleted. A review of files is currently underway to verify that this template has been applied correctly. Files that are copyrighted in the US and that have not been released under a free license may be deleted, unless an appropriate non-free license and a Non-free use rationale is provided." If this is non-free, then it currently has WP:F4 and WP:F6 issues; if it's PD per {{PD-old-70}} in the US, then the bots shouldn't be treating it as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just need to flip the order of the license tags to put the PD one first. We may also need a different cat beyond Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates for non-license ones so that a bot like JJMC89 would not see that (and make sure the bot operators know of this). --Masem (t) 13:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're suggesting in principle, but it this case the file doesn't have a non-free license or a non-free use rationale. It has a PD license and "Not-PD-US-URAA" (which is technically not a valid license); so, it's not clear why a bot is picking this up as being non-free unless it because of the way the file is categorized. I will ask JJMC89 about this. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to check with the bot, but if I were programming a bot to pull the first copyright license, I'm going to use a template that is in that category. And because there's non-license templates in what is expected to be only license templates, we get this problem. Masem (t) 01:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The file has now been tagged with {{Wrong-license}} by a different bot (Fastily's bot) an was also flagged for being too big a few days ago by JJMC89 bot. Something seems to have happened within the last few days or so that has suddenly made the file noticeable to bots. The most recent non-bot image was this one adding "Not-PD-US-URAA" and that seems to have been what has changed things. That was a bold change that might have been correct, but it's also one which now makes the file non-NFCC compliant because no non-free license or non-free use rationale were added by the user who made the edit. FWIW, that account is only about two months old and all of its edits so far have been to file pages and file licenses. The edits seem to be OK for the most part and the user seems to be familiar with file licensing (at least more familiar than a complete newbie would be expected to be). They might not, however, be fully aware of the ripple effects of some of their edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the short term fix is just change the order of where the Not-PD-US-URAA is placed, put it after a legit license flag. But the long term is to figure out what the bots are using (if they are using the category) and then we just need to fix the not-a-license templates out of there. Masem (t) 00:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe: "Unearthed"[edit]

I know this is an old subject, but since you were the one of the main Fringe editors, so I was wondering if you had an opinion on this matter: Talk:Fringe (TV series)#Unearthed. Thanks! Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's comments on employees at WP:BLPN[edit]

The editor I reported has made a fifth edit [1] with the false information:

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.[1][2][3][4]

This editor reported me for 3RR and the WP:AN/3 admin said I need Talk Page consensus to change this. What should I do? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gain talk page consensus. ~ HAL333 23:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brodkin, Jon (June 1, 2022). "Musk to Tesla and SpaceX workers: Be in the office 40 hours a week or quit". Ars Technica.
  2. ^ Bursztynsky, Jessica (June 1, 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla workers to return to the office full time or resign". CNBC.
  3. ^ Jin, Hyunjoo; Datta, Tiyashi (June 1, 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla staff: return to office or leave". Reuters.
  4. ^ Mac, Ryan (June 1, 2022). "Elon Musk to Workers: Spend 40 Hours in the Office, or Else". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 1, 2022.

Question on reliability of primary sources[edit]

Hello, I saw that you took part to many discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability recently. I've been browsing that page looking for an answer to a question that has surely already been asked in the past and discussed somewhere. Maybe you have the answer, or can direct me to where I could find the answer.
The question is about the notion of "source" and whether it includes (apart from the work itself, the creator of the work and the publisher) also the individual who is interviewed or whose statements are reported in a published source. We may call this individual "primary source", I imagine, and the source publishing their statement would be the "secondary source". So let's say that a reliable secondary source publishes a statement by a non-reliable primary source on the subject "Whatever". We have an article on "Whatever" and the question comes up on whether to include the statements by the primary source, with attribution, as reported by the secondary source. Editor 1 says that that is OK in principle, because the notion of verifiability applies to the secondary source only, and the source is fully reliable. Editor 2 says that reporting a statement by an unreliable primary source fails 5P2, because we are not striving for verifiable accuracy citing reliable authoritative sources: although the primary source is quoted with attribution to the source, the reader might not now that the primary source is non reliable. So the question is: who is right, Editor 1 or Editor 2? Is there a straightforward answer to this? If so, where could I find it?
I hope you don't mind my asking and thank you for your help.
P.S.
I just stumbled upon this essay that maybe answers my question, although I'm not entirely sure it does. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My take would be the first editor..the reliability of the secondary source means that what was said by the primary source can be consider verified. This doesn't make the primary sources true or the.lile. only that they said, and thus attribution is usually necessary, eg "Y said X' when using the secondary source that interviewed Y. Masem (t) 17:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the promp reply! Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones FAC peer review opened[edit]

Hello Masem! I see that you are listed at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC. Would you be able to take a look at The Rolling Stones by any chance and provide feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Rolling Stones/archive2? I have some (read: done a couple) experience with FAC and am hoping to take that article through FAC following another GOCE copyedit and would appreciate any feedback or suggestions that would make the process easier. Thank you for your time, regardless! TheSandDoctor Talk 16:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you for your 15 years of work on Grim Fandango[edit]

Dear Masem, for your continuous and significant contributions on Grim Fandango for a decade and a half and still going, I would like to present you with this barnstar:

The Video Game Barnstar
To User:Masem for your continuous and significant contributions since 2007 and all the way to today in 2022 (15 years and counting) to the Grim Fandango article. Al83tito (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to continuing to contribute to the article together with you and others, hopefully meeting your high standards of quality! :-P Best, Al83tito (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you for your great work on Moore v. Harper. Your efforts do not go unrecognized. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger things premise section[edit]

Hello, am going to revert your edits, well at least try to reword it and keep it simple as possible because In the film that isn't where the plotlines ended. Cheers and happy editing. Uricdivine (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you even mean by captured ones again. Uricdivine (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condemned 2[edit]

TQ for your input. I still want to add that bit about PC because I feel it's important but I will do so as a note. Krisfrosz133 (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For attempting to keep the Stranger Things entry on-target Balkris (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs on bias in high-quality sources[edit]

Since you seem to be objecting to the RFC on the AP, I would like your input on what a proper RFC on whether sources like the AP or the New York Times can be considered generally biased would look like. We cite those sources extensively, and the question of whether they are generally biased (and in what context) is absolutely vital; narrow, individual bias in specific areas can be settled on a case-by-case basis, but sweeping claims of bias require an RFC somewhere to put the matter to rest. Since you've repeatedly expressed the opinion that they're biased, and that this bias is a sweeping issue that must constantly be kept in mind, I would think you'd be happy to resolve that question in some manner so it doesn't constantly go in circles of "we have to attribute the AP, they're generally biased!" "No, they're not, they're the gold standard for high-quality neutral journalism." Is your assertion that we can never have an RFC about a source's bias? Because I definitely don't see any reason why that would be the case - when talking about sweeping claims of bias like the ones you've expressed, it's a straightforward up-or-down question. Basically, what wording for an RFC, on which page, would (if it reached an overwhelming consensus against your feeling that the AP is biased) convince you to drop the argument? --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to answer but it may be a while before I can compose it properly. Masem (t) 20:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some smaller points that are essential:
  • Typical media bias (ideological slant, editorialized writing, etc) do not affect a works reliability or even the article that they occur in. The only time bias can influence reliability is if it is a long term otters of extreme bias that affects the integrity of their reporting, eg why Fox News is up on RSP.
  • Reliability does not mean that we are to blindly accept what a reliable source prints as 100% factual. That is what YESPOV instructs. Particularly for anything that is a subjective claim (which is going to be influenced by bias), it should be presented in wikivoice using attribution. So part of a WP's editor's duties when writing is to consider what objective information can be pulled from a reliable source and make sure it is properly segregated and in wikivoice compared to the subjective information that should be attributed.
  • the whole issue around accountability reporting is that is moves away from objectivity to engagement (eg that makes the press the fourth branch of gov't by becoming more involved and direct with the story rather than the obfuscation that objectivity required. Now, that doesn't mean thus is bad press and thise linked articles point to some praises of the approach, but it does mean journalists are far more freely to speak their mind in plain speech, which is going to highlight bias further. (Eg when I have been writing on the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v Wade, the reporting from the high quality RSes was filled with resentment towards the Supreme Court, but still happened to cover the objective fundamentals without injecting bias.)
So the path here is that bias from ideological slants or reporting style enter into articles from reliable sources to make certain subjective statements you'd not normally expect to see in objective reporting outside op ed pages, statements that should not be take as fact in wikivoice, at least when talking short term reporting. So when dealing with articles like that of MTG we should be highly attuned to the bias that will exist and make sure we are not blindly repeating it. Doesn't mean we can't include subjective statement that meet WEIGHT in the article, but they should be presented as claims and written with attention to tobe to avoid capturing any of the bias that exists in the sources. (There is something to be said for long term academic coverage, or when it is clearly shown that a significant majority of sources are in agreement, but that's not the immediate issue--Masem (t) 20:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, though. I am disputing your basic assertion that the sources you're talking about are biased; the rest of what you say means nothing because it starts from a false premise. The AP is, broadly speaking, unbiased, and the RFC so far is backing that up. But since you've implicitly disputed the RFC, since you've indicated that you feel these sources are biased repeatedly across multiple venues, and since they're generally high-quality sources that we rely on for statements in the article voice, we need an RFC to settle this so we don't keep going around in circles. What sort of RFC, and in what venue, would you consider proper to address this? I am not going to drop it (at least until we have a clear consensus one way or the other, or have reached a point where it's obvious there's none to be had); as you yourself said, this dispute has gone on for years. We need to move towards resolving it decisively. From my perspective, at least, you are making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims with no evidence and have repeatedly derailed discussions with false assertions of media bias based on nothing but your personal feelings. If you feel that you can substantiate those claims and convince the rest of the community, you ought to welcome an RFC, whose outcome you could then point to to urge caution when people use said sources for things within the scope of their bias without attribution; but either way we do need one - you cannot repeatedly cast aspersions on high-quality neutral sources without ever putting the basic question you're asking (ie. are the AP, the New York Times, etc. generally neutral, or are they frequently biased) before the community. --Aquillion (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just so there is no confusion: If this RFC on whether the AP can be considered generally biased returns a "no" result, I would expect you to eventually stop asserting that (as you have above.) You've indicated confusion over whether it refers to bias or reliability, but I am not seeing that confusion from anyone else, so regardless of whether you understand it or not it will still be binding; if you want to argue that the AP is biased, I would suggest you change your "no" to a "yes" and make your case there, but it's ultimate your call, and it won't change the meaning of the RFC. You're entitled to hold a minority position, or to have gut feelings and personal opinions that go against the judgment of the community; but you have constantly and stridently asserted this "bias" without regard for community consensus. If the community finds that the AP is generally unbiased on the aspects you identified, I would expect you to either eventually drop the subject per WP:DEADHORSE / WP:BLUDGEON, or to present another specific argument for why you feel they're biased, which we can hold another RFC on. Your personal opinions on the mainstream media, no matter how heartfelt or strongly-held, do not override the consensus of the community. --Aquillion (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long time page watcher. Aquillion, you are wrong to be so dismissive of this concern. Part of the problem is the AP can be generally unbaised yet still suffer from adding POV in articles like the Dobbs case (as a strong pro-choice person I'm not happy with that result). Masem absolutely should not stop trying to make editors more aware of something that does cause systematic bias in our articles. I would suggest you try a shoe on the other foot analysis. If, for some magic reason, sources quickly adopted a strong conservative bias in tone and presentation but no error in fact would you feel the same way? If you are tired of this discussion you certainly aren't obligated to participate but others are welcome to. Springee (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I would want to address any biases they did develop; but I'd do so, if there seemed to be disagreement, by forming a consensus on the matter, and would welcome the opportunity to settle the matter via an RFC so I'd have something to point to going forwards. We decide if and how sources are biased, like everything else, via consensus, not based on editors filibustering things with repeated, identical arguments until everyone else declines to participate. When we have a persistent long-running dispute over whether particular sources are biased in particular ways, it is entirely appropriate to hold an RFC to settle the issue; and it's completely inappropriate to keep WP:BLUDGEONing the topic afterwards if there's a clear consensus that your perception of bias in this case is inaccurate. That is why the crux of what I'm saying here is "what sort of RFC would satisfy you on this dispute? What sort of discussion and consensus would be needed to convince you that the community as a whole rejects your view that the AP is biased in this particular way?" --Aquillion (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this something that needs an RfC? It seems that it really needs an awareness. It is a difficult thing since the answer is always somewhat subjective. I think we all agree that a single RS saying "X is a Y" is something that wouldn't be in Wiki-voice and might not be due. What several sources say it I think we all agree it becomes DUE but the question is attribution or not. When virtually all RSs say it then it moves to wiki-voice. The issue has always been trying to agree when that pile of sand becomes the "due" or "in wiki-voice" hill. A better way to look at this is perhaps to focus on what aspects of a news media report is original commentary/analysis vs what is raw fact reporting. What claims are supported by the facts of the story and what are unsubstantiated claims (true or not) added by the reporter. I trust you would agree that we are dealing with shades of gray in terms of reporting bias rather than outright black and white issues. If we at least agree there then it's a matter of acknowledging or just accepting that we don't have an agreement on where the lines lay. I think in the last year or so we had a large discussion or even RfC related to LABEL (again I think that was it but I might be confusing the specific case). Anyway, I think it was a proposal to change LABEL in some way and I think the discussion ended with no consensus. That many not have changed things (per NOCON) but a discussion that ends in no-consensus means quite a few editors agreed with the change. In such cases returning to the topic is appropriate. Looking at this discussion I see about a 50/50 split in opinions (or perhaps it was just 50/50 split in word count :D ) "conspiracy_theorist". That's not enough to effect a change but it does mean quite a few editors are concerned. If this many are concerned then there is a good chance we do have a problem, we just don't fully agree on how to define it and even harder how to address it. Suggesting that 50% should drop it because they didn't get to 2/3rds (my typical line for consensus when all else is equal) is inappropriate since it ignores a problem that a large number of editors see. Alternatively, it implies that 50% of editors aren't smart enough to recognize there isn't really a problem. I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. Springee (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me step back, that not only does bias not equate to unreliability, but it also doesnt mean every word of the source should be considered tainted by bias. Bias is an source article by article, and perhap even context by context evaluation. What has to be accepted is that sources that may lean left, or my use accountability journalism, or may only focus on Western news, can possess bias in articles, and thus when summarizing sources, consider that bias can enter their articke which we must avoid repeating in wikivoice in ours as outlined at YESPOV. Which most of the time is via attribution. Not one iota about reliability, which you want to keep coflating here. The only point that bias interests with reliability is if the bias is so persistent to impact the editorism of the work and fall into a propaganda machine like Fox News
As to what elements would satisfy the dispute, theres several. YESPOV vs SPADE for example. The importance of RECENTISM vs getting in opinion and commentary an articke. The urge to stress what a topic is notable for asap vs the need to write impartially and neutrality. There are probably more and the is not central issue that cleanly resolves it, it has been a slow decline in all these areas for the last 8 some years. Understanding the increasing left slant if the mainstream media and willingness to be less objective give is just part of it. Masem (t) 02:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding free use rationale for extra articles[edit]

Hi Masem. I'm hoping you can help me out with an area of Wikipedia I've always been fuzzy on. Is there a guide around anywhere on how to add a free-use rationale to an existing image so that it can be used on additional articles? I've always been thrown by the way that Image details pages have far more info on them than you can actually see by editing the file so I've not really got a clue where to go for it. I've tried googling and found virtually nothing of use at all. I can add an image just fine, but I'm always stumped when I need to reuse an image. Falastur2 Talk 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To reuse non-free on a second (or further) article, you need to to add a new rationale specific to that new page. If the file page is already using one of the templates, you can duplicate that template, but you have to change the target article and the rationale for that page. If not, you need to add a new paragraph/section clearly delinated for the new article to explain the rationale. --Masem (t) 19:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi Falastur2. I'm going to add some more to what Masem posted. It's important to be aware of things like WP:JUSTONE, WP:OTHERIMAGE, WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:NFC#Guideline examples (particularly the parts about unacceptable non-free uses) whenever thinking of adding any non-free file to any article, but such things often becomes deciding issues when trying to use that same non-free file more than once. Non-free use isn't automatic as explained in WP:NFCCP and each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy all 10 of the NFCCP criteria. Relevant policy only requires that a non-free file be used in at least one article, which means it can be used in other articles or in other ways; not all non-free uses, however, are identical, and how a non-free file is being used or where it's being used may be different enough to justify its use in one way or one article but not another. By definition, the first use of a non-free file is already considered an exception to WP:COPY and thus there needs to be a strong justification for its use. Additional uses tend to be seen as being even more exceptional and ,thus, tend to require much stronger justifications. Since policy asks us to keep non-free content use as minimal as possible, there are lots of cases where additional uses are really very hard to justify and trying to do so would be sort of like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. If you push hard enough you might be able to force the peg into the hole, but it will never be a smooth fit and might end up creating some other different problems. Since you didn't mention which file you want to use and where you want to use it, it's probably hard for Masem or anyone else to give you more than a general answer; if you specify the exact file you want to use, where you want to use it and how you want to use it, then it might be easier for Masem to give you a more through answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your responses. Marchjuly: to clarify, I am not looking for guidance on how to justify an image's use. I have my rationale already - it's a sports club logo which is used across multiple divisions and therefore there simply cannot be any other image used. The non-free use rationale is simple - it is a logo defining an organisation. I'm good with that. What I find very hard to work out is how exactly I'm meant to edit the page to add the rationale in the first place. Just going to the file and clicking Edit like I would an article doesn't seem to be the right place? Falastur2 Talk 21:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Falastur2: Stating that it's a sports club logo which is used across multiple divisions and therefore there simply cannot be any other image used. already makes its non-free use seem possibly questionable per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Generally, sports club logos tend to be considered acceptable when they're used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of the main article (i.e. "parent entity") about the club itself, but using the same logo in articles about other incarnations of the main time (i.e. "child articles") can be problematic. In such cases, a logo specific to the particular division tends to be be much easier to justify; moreover, over suc a specific logo doesn't exist, then sometimes not using any logo at all is seen as preferable to repeatedly using the same logo over and over in multiple articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The gardens between cover art.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The gardens between 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) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your recent comments about bias, and all the work you do in ensuring that articles adhere to a WP:NPOV. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of term "conspiracy theorist" discussion[edit]

Just wanted to say I really enjoyed reading your thoughts in that "conspiracy theorist" discussion on Jimbo’s talk page. What you were saying made perfect sense and should be the standard for any reputable encyclopedia. It was disappointing reading some of the responses you got for simply trying to make sure an encyclopedia is held to encyclopedic standards. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits reverted[edit]

Why can’t Reddit be used as a source? A player from the season made the comment that confirms it takes place.

Link to comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/w72529/comment/ihl4pix/ Throwaway738392 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERG explains why. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was a sockpuppet as well. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Kälin[edit]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at a discussion I started at Talk:Christian Kälin#Unexplained removals of sourced content, WP:COATRACK additions? As an editor who appears to deal frequently with questions surrounding NPOV, I am hoping you can confirm my belief that an edit made to the article a little while ago should be undone. I'm unable to follow the normal WP:BRD process here because I have a COI. Much appreciated, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus re "10 year view"[edit]

Hi Masem. Thanks for your comment at the Fox News RfC [2]. I regularly find myself in the position you describe, and have been wanting to collect a list of the most important policies and other forms of general consensus to help educate others. I tend to use WP:NOT, especially NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM. Do you have any suggestions? I've not looked through ArbCom findings, other than the Principles (which don't have any especially strong statements). Hipal (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wexler[edit]

This article needs significant cutting down, with all plot details using episodes as sources (the cite episode format, as seen in Lalo Salamanca). Are you up for helping? Also pinging Billmckern. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It (and the other character articles around BB/BCS) absolutely need trimming to high level points. We don't need to touch on every episode and recreate the plot like that, it should be very high-level season arcs. Masem (t) 12:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Connected (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Connected (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Connected (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PD-logo?[edit]

Hi Masem. File:WLUE logo.jpg, File:WEGR MEMPHIS 2017.png, File:Y100Ft. Myers.jpg and File:Y100 Florida.png seem to be {{PD-logo}} to me, but I'd like a second opinion before converting any licensing. Do you think these need to remain non-free? If they do, then I don't think they meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Jerusalem[edit]

You may want to edit your bolded response, as I was editing the RFC per feedback while you were responding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change, sorry about the edit to the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith edits[edit]

User Masem uses aggressive and bad faith edits of contents. See for reference the page of Maddy Thorson. I write this for future reference and also based on the history of the user who had complains about this in the past. Sandrinator (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WV v. EPA[edit]

Hi Masem, I concur that it's not clear whether the IRA overruled the case, but the line about its effect on "outside the fence" regulations is not supported by the source. That phrase has a specific legal meaning, having to do with whether the statutory text "best system of emission reduction" (42 U.S.C. § 7411) includes so-called "outside the fence" regulations that do not directly affect power plants. In particular in this case, that means generation shifting. The Court ruled that generation shifting fell under the major questions doctrine and was thus invalid absent specific Congressional authorization. The NYT article only makes broad claims about allowing the EPA to regulate CO2, and does not make any specific claims about whether generation shifting (or other outside the fence regulations) are authorized by the IRA. Indeed, the only sources I can find for such claims seem to be Twitter users over-zealously reading into the NYT article. ShadowfactsDev (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nytimes articles says that legal experts believe that this means the EPA can set regulations on generation shifting to clean sources since the law specifically addresses co2 from burning fuels....however, the EPA has yet to set any guidelines that have been tested by a court. Hence why I added that as an attribution to legal experts and not as fact.Masem (t) 22:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read the NYT article, and the only reference I see that could be construed to be about generation shifting is "Congress had never granted the agency the broad authority to shift America away from burning fossil fuels. Now it has." And even then, only the word "shift" suggests it. Generation shifting, however, as an outside the fence rule, requires more specific Congressional authorization (which the IRA does not have) than simply general policy (which the act undoubtedly does set, declaring CO2 an air pollutant that's within EPA's remit)—that's the whole major questions doctrine. I don't believe the author's implication is an adequate basis for the claim, when they only cite anonymous legal experts (and what's more, one of the named experts cited believes the bill has no bearing on the Supreme Court's decision). If there were other legal experts who were able to say, "this is the text in the bill that overrules WV v. EPA," the claim would be far more compelling. ShadowfactsDev (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"That language, according to legal experts as well as the Democrats who worked it into the legislation, explicitly gives the E.P.A. the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to use its power to push the adoption of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources." Since this is about regulating power plants, any forced used of renewables is generating shifting for the plants, which are outside the fence from the SCOTUS ruling. As they do not say for certain, that's why I placed it as a anakysis. Masem (t) 01:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the bill does allow the agency to push clean energy sources, it does not do so by the same mechanism as was tried with the CPP, § 7411(d), which allows the EPA to require that states submit plans that use standards of performance that require generation shifting. And it's not clear that the NYT article (or the Bloomberg Law one) is saying that the IRA's changes to the CAA would make such regulations legal—whereas they do definitively say that it answers the major question of whether the EPA is allowed to regulate carbon emissions.
I think this can be resolved by tweaking the phrasing of that sentence. For example, "Some legal experts believe..." or "This may allow..." would make it clear that, while new outside the fence regulations are a possibility under the IRA, their legality is not a forgone conclusion. ShadowfactsDev (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the statement as follows "Legal experts believe this would allow the EPA to set "outside the fence" regulations on existing power plants as to promote clean energy." For that reason, that it was not set in stone the EPA could. The anytime article is clear that whether the legislation curtains alk of WV v. ePA is unsure even by lawmakers, who said they tries the best to meet every point in the scouts decision, so until the EPA actually sets a rule which will likely incur legal challenges, how far it goes to overturn WV is unknown. What is clear and factual is that the bill sets CO2 and other pollutants that are GHGs that now clearly fall under the EPAs remit (codifying Mass v. EPA) Masem (t) 07:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IRA definitely codifies Massachusetts and the EPA's subsequent rulemaking, but I don't believe the source is strong enough to support the general claim about what "legal experts believe." As I mentioned, this Twitter thread from a UMich law professor and this one from a legal journalist are very certain that the IRA does not answer the Court's major question of generation shifting and outside the fence regulation—only that it may bar other major questions challenges. Again, though personally I feel the sentence should be removed, I would be fine rewording it to be clearer that the legislation's affect on this matter is an outstanding question and there is not broad consensus.
Since we're clearly going around in circles, I've asked for a third opinion. ShadowfactsDev (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All you need that is the concern is adding "some" in front of legal experts, but i take that as implied but that type of attribution (rather than saying "many" or "most" Masem (t) 04:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's implied, though. When I read a sentence like "legal experts believe X, Y, and Z", I interpret it as being fairly definitive and generally agreed upon—and I think most casual readers would too. ShadowfactsDev (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That we are clearly attributing to legal experts is how i would say it implies "some", but ive added that specifically. It would be good if a secondary source covers tge stance that the law doesn't change wv v epa Masem (t) 04:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think with your recent updates, the section is in a much better state. The Parenteau source makes it clear that this is an ongoing debate, thank you. ShadowfactsDev (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd even go beyond that—I think the sentence should be removed altogether. This thread is from a University of Michigan law professor, and it says in unequivocal terms that the IRA does not address the specific major question that the Supreme Court said it would have to in order to permit generation shifting.
At the very least, the potential for future generation shifting or outside the fence regulation is a matter of contention and not something "legal experts believe." ShadowfactsDev (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:ShadowfactsDev - If you post a request for a Third Opinion from a user talk page, please at least provide a link so that a volunteer can check what the contested text is. I am leaving the request open until you do that work for me. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentences of West_Virginia_v._EPA#Legislative_action were at issue, however the disagreement's been resolved now. ShadowfactsDev (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC regarding rules on paged for districts and councils[edit]

Hi. As a respected Wikipedian would you take a look at this rfc at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography and give you opinion?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Atari VCS (upcoming console)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Atari VCS (upcoming console) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Atari VCS (upcoming console) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Blurb Listing[edit]

Hi Masem. Seems like there are some issues with the blurb listing. When I added my blurb before, I noticed that one person supported a "Aaltblurb 2" which did not seem to be displayed, and that there seemed to be additional blurbs in the entry not shown. Maybe you could check and refactor the blub listing as needed? Carter00000 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Masem, if you're going to revert [3], you need to revert [4] as well. Andre🚐 17:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "good faith"? Blakelyelijahl (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blakelyelijahl: By good faith, I took your addition of the list of franchises with planned 2023 releases as a non-vandalism, non-troll, well-intentioned edit that was otherwise not really appropriate for that page (we haven't tracked franchise sequels in a while because there's just far too many). Masem (t) 13:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election[edit]

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandi Bushell[edit]

Thanks for the check. I assume Social Blade doesn't count? DaydreamBelizer (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some poking around and it seems the discussion at WP:RS/N died a year ago with no real consensus. I've reopened the discussion. Thanks again for checking me. DaydreamBelizer (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandi took to her Instagram Thursday to thank everyone working on her article. I thought you'd enjoy this. 🙂 DaydreamBelizer (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Masem! I think this article is ready to sit at GAN for six months (🤪). Please add/subtract/change whatever it needs.
My proposed DIY for when it passes: Did you know that 10-year-old Nandi Bushell engaged in an online drum battle with Dave Grohl, and "she beat me fair and square"?
DaydreamBelizer (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STOP REVERTING THE RHYTHM HEAVEN PAGE[edit]

IF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THINGS, THEY GO ON WIKIPEDIA SO STOP REVERTING THE RHYTHM HEAVEN PAGE!! GrEgOrYiSnTaRoBoT (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Leap[edit]

The editor that you reverted is still adding the same unsourced content on the article even though they been reverted by multiple editors. — YoungForever(talk) 02:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions[edit]

Hello. I read your responses over at BLPN regarding this thread here. I agree with your assessment that the report does not say an American Lab is involved. I also have looked through the report [5]. Another editor on the related article talk page also seems to agree [6].

I also agree that the two sources cited, the Independent and the Telegraph are synthesizing information, or jumping to conclusions. So, this is quite the conundrum. What these two publications have done amounts to clickbait. I found two articles in The Washington Post [7] and CNN [8]. These emphasize the report's findings, some reactions from others, and make no conclusions about a U.S. Lab in the way that the other two sources have done.

Anyway, I am wondering if you are willing to further discuss this matter here on your talk page. I have to go for now, but will check back. If you want read what the Wikipedia article says about the report here is a link: [9]. There is also a discussion on the talk page that has stalled for now [10]. And there was a related discussion the section above that one [11]. I haven't had a chance to read through that above section just yet. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Louise Fletcher[edit]

On 29 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Louise Fletcher, 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. PFHLai (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persona 5[edit]

Hello! I noticed the article you created Persona 5 has almost (or has) reached the GA Criteria! I'd reccomend applying this article to GA/VG. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "to-be-discontinued" in lead[edit]

Hi, you've reverted my edit on Google Stadia adding "to-be-discontinued" to the lead. The usage of "discontinued" with regards to services is generally accepted in first sentences, as it's highly relevant to the typical reader. Soo...why shouldn't we nod towards the fact said service has discontinued all sales? (MOS:FIRST doesn't say much on this topic; I believe "where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist" allows for a nod towards this.) Mirrortemplar (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The service is still operational, and we have later in the lede that it will be shut down. We don't need to be stating "to-be-discontinued" at this point. When the service is shut down , we will either switch to "is a discontinued service" or "was a service", but we shouldn't touch that until then. Masem (t) 01:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT[edit]

I'm sorry, but it is absurd to have guidelines for most sports (e.g. cricket), but not football. What kind of nonsense is this? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmorrison230582: The GNG still is a standard allowance for any sports, and given how much coverage association football gets, most notable athletes should have coverage from reliable sources in this manner. But the RFC eliminated any criteria that was solely based on simple participate in a professional game. --Masem (t) 15:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well them, since there isn't a guideline to tell me that such and such a player isn't notable, I won't bother proposing anyone for deletion. Then we'll end up with even more player biographies than before. I'm sure that's what you intended. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, players still have to meet the GNG (as the top of NSPORT says for any sport). --Masem (t) 15:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Masem. Thank you for creating Gonzalez v. Google LLC. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vimeo updates[edit]

Hello Masem! I'm Bridget from Vimeo. I've taken over for Jordan (aka User:JS Vimeo) and see that you typically responded to her requests. I've posted a request on Talk:Vimeo and was wondering if you're available to help me out? Thanks! BK Vimeo (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 in video games, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages OPM and OXM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to copy on ps4[edit]

Im not using a pc~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.163.28 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solution?[edit]

Hi Masem, I agree 100% that “there's a much larger issue around the broader trend of editors treating controversial BLPs and groups as a laundry list of every negative thing they can link to an RS without actual consideration of writing an article that will make sense in the 10+ year period.” So do you have a solution??? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of dead persons only? Or maybe we could have a template for making a BLP that includes only the most basic uncontroversial facts? Another option is to introduce randomly-selected juries into Wikipedia, to enforce BLP policy (I think juries should also be used instead of the weird disciplinary system currently in place). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short desc[edit]

Hello! I was just going by this. [12]

I feel like based on that, especially for the deceased, they are to be included. Now, if the description is already very long or the information in the article is unclear, I tend to avoid. I will adhere to your judgment on that edit in question as the policy seems to really be fluid. Best wishes. Red Director (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Video Games[edit]

Hi. I split the AR/VR/MR section on the History of Video Games article into separate AR and VR sections because the types of games differ greatly across the two technologies, and they also got popular at different times, with the first consumer-ready AR games preceding VR games by a few years, like on the 3DS and early smartphones. If you still have concerns about this, we should discuss it on the talk page for the article. Rosedaler (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Alain Aspect[edit]

On 11 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Alain Aspect, 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 19:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rosedaler (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Hurricane Julia (2022)[edit]

On 12 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hurricane Julia (2022), 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, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. Why was a discussion started at ANI without having a direct discussion with the editor first? Maybe I am unaware of prior attempts at dispute resolution? Jehochman Talk 12:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"New Nintendo Switch" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New Nintendo Switch and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#New Nintendo Switch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits to "Loot (video game)"[edit]

Hello @Masem, I see you have reverted a change I made to Loot (video games) with the following reason: "Cannot use fandom.com links as per USERG". I suppose it refers to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content Didn't know about this beforehand but of course it makes sense.

How do you suggest I handle the proposed changes? The changes mostly do these 3 things:

  1. Revise and fix loot-coloring history, as the original version implies modern games are based off Diablo, which is not the case (it is World of Warcraft) as supported by sources that were already cited in the original version.
  2. Add links to various game wikis (some of them fandom, some of them not, but of course all of them are user-generated content) to give references for examples of loot-coloring in these games.
  3. Make sure italic is consistently used on all video games names in the page (this was inconsistent).

Point 2 here is obviously the one posing an issue, as I did not add any other resources considering the ones in the original version were already supporting my "new version". Do you think I should just "not source" the examples? I don't think there's any way to give references for this outside of using the user-generated wikis as basis, and it is trivial to check it is the case by just firing up the game. 92.91.213.84 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources, and fandom.com being user-made wikis are not that, nor are we going to link to them (see WP:ELNO). That said given that what seems to be WoW's loot defining feature is the LFR-style (rather than Diablo's trading approach), that aspect of loot can be expanded on, but its just a matter of finding sources to support it. Eg [13], [14]. --Masem (t) 12:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we got a misunderstanding: we don't need more sources, the sources already cited in the current version are already in support of the new version I proposed. The only issue here is I thought it'd be nice to show actual examples of modern games doing loot-coloring in the Wow fashion, and then I linked to fandom wikis so that the examples can be shown. The original article already gave one example but did not link to anything to show loot-coloring examples, so my proposal is to simply do the same (i.e. use the new version but just don't link to fandom wikis, because the original version did not source it's loot-coloring anyway, so we are keeping the same level of detail in any case). 92.91.213.84 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's probably easier to just show what I mean. I've pushed another revision to Loot (video games) so that you can review it :) 92.91.213.84 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found yet another source that confirms the WoW coloring being the one most followed. I did trim that list to the titles that are more broadly recognized and shown to use the loot colors (overwatch + fortnite). Masem (t) 00:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, cheers. 92.91.213.84 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.LoveToLondon (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Megamind[edit]

Regarding your edits to Megamind, with all due respect and no offense meant, you are quite incorrect. The only reason that the audience knows that Hal has misspelled his super name is because he does write it. There is a prominent scene in the film, towards the end, where he flies above the city and uses his laser vision to burn the name into the city. We can quite clearly see that he has spelled it t i g h t e n in that scene. Otherwise, there would be no way for the audience to know he has actually spelled it wrong. And for further proof that Megamind originally intended the name to be spelled t i t a n, there is a scene where Roxanne is putting together clues as to megaminds plan and you can clearly see the name spelled t i t a n. Therefore it is a misspelling when Hal refers to himself as Tighten. Not a mishearing, since the two words are homophones and there is no way to "hear" an intended spelling between homophones. Therefore, to say he misspelled it is factually correct. EEBuchanan (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With closed captions on when name is first introduced, its clear "Space Dad" says "Titan", and Hal takes it as "Tighten". Even without the captions, you can hear the inflection differences and how "Space Dad" response to that. So Hal mishears it, not misspells it. Masem (t) 18:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inflection differences do not indicate spelling. Inflection differences can just be accent, dialect, a lot of different things. You cannot assume spelling and besides the captions don't affect the fact that he actually does write it out, and you claim he never did. EEBuchanan (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that from the captions (which are taken from the script), Hal is calling himself "Tighten" from the start thus spells it the way he heard it, it is not that he considered himself "Titan" and then in that scene misspelled it as "Tighten". Masem (t) 18:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that he spelled it wrong in his head. He didn't hear it wrong, it's impossible to hear it wrong. The whole point of homophones is they sound exactly the same and you can't tell the difference unless they are written out. He could not, under any circumstances, have audibly discerned the difference. He assumed the difference in his head, but there is no difference to hear with your ears that would affect the spelling. Therefore, in his head, he misspelled the word. It has nothing to do with what he heard. For instance if I were to say the words blue and blew back to back, no matter what my voice inflection was, you would probably think I said the same word twice and decode the spelling as blue blue or blew blew. Misspelling is the correct word to use here because there is no difference between the two words to hear. And for obvious reasons captions are not taken directly from the script. The script goes through many changes from its original inception, and actors ad-lib quite a bit, and sometimes change the wording of the lines slightly while they're recording, and so forth. Captions are added after the fact and they are not shown in theaters, and sometimes there's more than one set of captions to pick from on a film depending on which DVD or version you have. I know this because I have a couple versions of the John Wayne film hatari, and in one the captions are closer to what it said on the screen and on another they are farther away from it. I have also seen many a film where the captions abbreviate something somebody says, or just have a complete misspelling all together just because they were cheaply done. You cannot use captions as sources of factual information for a films plot. They are extremely unreliable. EEBuchanan (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just think its very clear (beyond the spelling) that Megamind wanted Hal to go by "Titan", that Hal misheard or misunderstood and took it as "Tighten", and went with that, rather than Hal understanding it was "Titan" but misspelled it "Tighten" in that one scene. Heck, even the movie credits Johan Hill's role as "Tighten", not "Hal" or "Titan". Masem (t) 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing that he misunderstood it. What I'm disagreeing with is is the fact you said it was never written, and also the fact you're trying to say he heard it wrong. If we want to say misunderstood as a compromise that's better but his miss hearing it is a physical impossibility. It needs to be either misunderstood or misspelled not misheard. That was the point I was trying to make. EEBuchanan (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Jules Bass[edit]

On 29 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jules Bass, 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. PFHLai (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR Notice[edit]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN nomination for 2022 Haitian crisis[edit]

Hey there! I've started a second discussion on the eligibility of the 2022 Haitian crisis article for ITN, and since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to provide your input. Thank you! —Matthew - (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Tropical Storm Nalgae (2022)[edit]

On 4 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tropical Storm Nalgae (2022), 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 00:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Ethiopia–Tigray peace agreement[edit]

On 7 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ethiopia–Tigray peace agreement, 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) 09:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits to "Battle pass"[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you've reverted my edit on the "Battle pass" article for listing one game that included a battle pass system. I understand that I did not add sources for my claim, but here I have the most recent example from last month: [15] [16][17]

Would it be to Wikipedia's standards if I can re-add my contribution to the article with some or all of the sources listed above? ChickenLover21 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikia is a user generated work, and we want third party sources to cover it to avoid self-promotion --Masem (t) 03:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! I can understand your point about the issues with using Wikia as a source. The third source I listed is from the official game's Facebook account, are sources from Facebook not allowed either? ChickenLover21 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For something like this , we want a third-party source to avoid commercial promotion. We are not going to list out every game with battle pass systems, only those that have been noted by reliable third-party sources. Masem (t) 04:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Mehran Karimi Nasseri[edit]

On 15 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mehran Karimi Nasseri, 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. PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for World population[edit]

On 16 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article World population, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit to Deep Rock Galactic[edit]

I noticed you reverted my edit to DRG (inspiration from Minecraft) and I was wondering if this source is suitable:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/deep-rock-galactic/deep-rock-galactic-unreal-engine-4

Thank you for reverting it by the way, I mean that AstronomicalPotato (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work. Definitely confirms Minecraft as one inspiration Masem (t) 20:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you AstronomicalPotato (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second opinion on some non-free former logos[edit]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at KAWO#Previous logos and KLTD#Previous logos. The two in the KLTD article are both non-free, but only one of the two in KAWO article is non-free. I tyring to figure out whether any of the the non-free ones can be converted to {{PD-logo}} and tagged for a move to Commons. If they can, then they probably can be kept; if not, then I don't see how they meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and most likely will need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two on KAWO barely make them as under the TOS, and the right one on KLTD is too (same markings on the duplicated 1). The other KLTD is non-free due to the cutout outline. --Masem (t) 14:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Masem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Twitter[edit]

Hi Masem! I assume you have way more knowledge that I do about Twitter. I searched through the page after your undo, though, and I didn't see CBS' reference to ending their Twitter engagement, which seems significant. Can you explain why you felt that it should be removed from Twitter's history? I understand making it less significant, but I felt that CBS decision to end their engagement on Twitter was worthy of a specific edit.

Thanks for your consideration. JByrne404 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)JByrne404[reply]

Multiple companies re-evaluated their use of Twitter after Musk's takeover, so it doesn't make sense to call out only one company, particularly with the article as long as it is. The section on history post Musk-takeover, makes note of this general trend. Masem (t) 02:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks! It seemed notable to me because it's a news company, as opposed to other companies that are re-evaluating more from an advertising perspective. But I agree, the article is probably too long as it is. Maybe it makes sense to break it into separate entries, as other entries do, for complex topics? — JByrne404 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup Group E nomination[edit]

Hey @Masem, I noticed you added a comment Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2022 FIFA World Cup Group E saying that I sould not add a event currently ongoing when It was already done. You realize your mistake @Masem. Oddballslover (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The World Cup is ongoing. One game in the World Cup is not significant enough to post. --Masem (t) 01:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it was a game it wasn’t a hypothesis. Oddballslover (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for COVID-19 protests in China[edit]

On 27 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article COVID-19 protests in China, 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. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Male expendability[edit]

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wordle[edit]

Hi I edited the entry on wordle twice to add that “sankethi” language also has a version. Both the times you removed saying it was a “good faith” edit. I added a second reference they second time. Could you explain why? Shrieku (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We want a third-party source as a reference, like a newspaper. Not the pointer to the source code for the game. As there's well over a thousand variants of Wordle, we want that additional source to make sure we're not just listing promotional links. Masem (t) 19:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather silly. It is like asking a person for a third party reference to prove his existence. Anyway, the second reference was an announcement of its release. Not every version gets mentioned in a newspaper. 

Shrieku (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, and there's thousands of Wordle versions, we are purposely looking for those that got recognized by newspapers or other similar sources. Otherwise that article would be flooded with every random Wordle clone Masem (t) 23:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a random clone. It is important to recognise milestones made in minority languages. Many of these are not “important” enough for a newspaper to mention them. But they are important for the speakers of the language. Wikipedia should empower these voices. Your actions are instead drowning them. That isn’t in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Shrieku (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of WP is to summarize topics based on how they are reported in reliable sources, not to document everything that exists. Masem (t) 23:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if the existence of something is not reliable enough, then nothing else is. Anyway, could you tell me how I escalate this? Or resolve this? Shrieku (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:V and specifically WP:VNOT. Yes, you can verify that version exists, but if the only source that shows that is from the person that made the work, that's not good enough for inclusion on the Wordle page where we cannot list out every verifiable clone so the decision on the talk page has been to restrict to those recognized in third-party reliable sources. Masem (t) 01:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source isn’t my work. Anyway, if you could tell me how to escalate or resolve this please Shrieku (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First would be to discuss the inclusion on Talk:Wordle to get other editors' opinion. And while the source you are providing isn't your work, it is the work of the creator of that version, and thus a first-party source. Masem (t) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonagram hatnote[edit]

Hatnotes are provided on pages where they'll help a user who might end up there while looking for something else. Although nonograms are sometimes called "Paint by Numbers", there's no way a user searching for "paint by number" can end up at Nonogram, so it doesn't get a hatnote. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Software screenshot question[edit]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at this Help Desk question? Do you think there's any chance that a screenshot taken from 1st Word/1st Word Plus might be {{PD-US-1989}}? The software seems to be described as freeware, but I don't think that's the same as "copyright free freeware". Since you seem to have a good understanding about software related non-free content, I thought you might be able to help the IP out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hades II[edit]

Hello, with Hades II, you want it to be a redirect and I think there's enough for an article--given you're an admin, would you mind draftifying the article so I can have a chance to prove that? Thanks, DecafPotato (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see all the sources that exist right now to know you can't make a non-stub article. Now, is there likely sources coming out soon about it? Sure, but we have to wait for those to exist. In the meantime, you can expand what is possible at the Sequel section of the Hades article. Masem (t) 01:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a draft in my sandbox, as I think it would be a bit undue weight-y to give all the information about the sequel in the article for the first game—do you think that's enough info? I certainly think it passes GNG, more so an issue of whether there's enough info to make it its own article. I think it is, but am wondering if I should expand it a bit more.
P.S.: You should probably archive the older discussions here; there's a lot, ha. DecafPotato (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Masem. Thank you for your work on Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox (Console)[edit]

Re: The reversion of the Xbox Live information on the original Xbox page. Where should I put this information/how should I make sure this information is available on Wikipedia? It hasn't been properly archived anywhere.

I also would argue that most original Xbox Live services are not available in current live. While the basics are there (friends, voice, online matchmaking), current live has no clan or competition systems, no video calls, no messenger/alerts integration, no dedicated sport tournament system, no standardised scoreboard system, and does not receive updates in the way that original live did. With these things considered and that it was shut down separately and was updated differently to 360 Live, I feel it would feel out of place on the Xbox Live/Xbox Network page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casuallynoted (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casuallynoted: Historical features of Xbox live - as long as backed by reliable sopurces - can be discussed as part of the history of Xbox Live. (Also please start new discuss topics at the end of talk pages). --Masem (t) 13:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits - "good faith"[edit]

Hi, you recently reverted[18] my edit and in the edit description you stated: "Reverted good faith edits". According to WP:GF "[...] good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." Emphasis added.

Do you consider my edit harmful? If so, how?

Sorry for bothering you, but I m still learning the way WP works. Kind regards, AkisAr-26 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider your actions harmful, just unnecessary. Your edit was in good faith. The wording you're quoting says that even for some edits that may appear to be harmful on the surface, reverting as a good faith edit is what we want to presume to keep everyone working in a civil environment. Masem (t) 19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Kind regards, AkisAr-26 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Fifteenth Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Wishing Masem a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're all so ollllddd. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!

Masem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Masem![edit]

Happy New Year!

Masem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch[edit]

Sorry for writing speculation Cwater1 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier F[edit]

Hi Masem. You wrote earlier that you had questions about the Soldier F issue that weren't answered. I'm surprised at that, and would be grateful if you could point out to me where your questions went unanswered. As the BLP/N case has been archived, the Bloody Sunday (1972) RfC is probably the most appropriate venue. TIA. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't that they weren't answered but they weren't answered fully as it was explained the situation was complicated, with implication that there were well known but not readily documented elements in play. Masem (t) 16:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rule about treating different people exactly the same?[edit]

I don't care if ADF/Barrett is mentioned in the Dobbs article or not, but I have never seen a link to policy/MOS to support this reasoning

Nope, the removal is correct, as otherwise we should then dissect every justice's past actions in abortion and any relationships to any parties involved.

I often see this argument, though. Have you got a link? Edit: I should clarify that this is specifically in reference to the circumstance that, with regard to Dobbs, RS talk much more about Barrett's links to interested organizations than they do about any other justice's links to any organization. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is effectively an NPOV issue (and under WP:UNDUE), but better classified as a WP:COATRACK. It calls out a specific stance regarding Barrett related to the ADF, but no other Justice's possible relationships are called into question, making it feel like it coatracks the connection between Barrett and the ADF.
Now, I know the ADF has been an active force in trying to restrict abortion in the US and have influenced judges. And if there was a more comprehensive set of sourcing that approached this from the ADF having influence on the court (including Barrett) that would be more reasonable to include. Masem (t) 03:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ludum Dare video games has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Ludum Dare video games 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. Zerbu Talk 09:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

College football[edit]

Responding to your recent diff at WP:ITN/C regarding the CFP: but also due to the fact that once the teams were decided over last weekend, this result (short of the final score) was pretty much taken for granted.

Now that's a hot sportsy take. 😊 I'm just curious, which team did you reckon would have been a more competitive matchup for Georgia? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was Michigan, the odds still favored Georgia (SEC powerhouse) but it would have been far closer and not a far outside chance of MI winning. Masem (t) 17:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Squid Game: The Challenge[edit]

Information icon Hello, Masem. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Squid Game: The Challenge, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion link[edit]

Hi Masem! Re this comment you made, I'm curious to read the conversation. Do you recall the link to it? Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall but WT:NFC may be a start. There also might be discussion on meta: but where I don't know. I do know the issue was raised and the action taken but that was probably early 2022 or before. Masem (t) 05:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive 200#Images with search results. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe Julian Onziema[edit]

Hi. Can you hide the edit summary in this diff? Thanks. SunilNevlaFan✨ 01:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Series with new entries (Video games in...)[edit]

Why is the "Series with new entries" not allowed anymore for 2023, when it has been a prominent section feature in the years before it? -Prince Silversaddle (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#"Series_with_new_entries"_in_year_articles. just because we've done it for years doesn't make it right. Masem (t) 23:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guts from berserk[edit]

Yes please. GutsfromBerserk(real) (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN nominations[edit]

Hey. I don't frequent ITN, so I don't really know how things work over there. With the Brianna Ghey AfD now having been closed as a keep, and the killing now being under investigation as a potential hate crime (those seemed to be the two major objections), would there be any sense in my making a second nomination for that article? Or are repeat nominations at ITN not allowed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating it for RD at least would make sense, and I would point to the AFD to show that the event was kept. I don't think the event has enough to be posted as a blurb (Brianna is still a rather non-notable person) but as discussed during that thread, if the event is notable, then the person can get an RD. Masem (t) 02:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My original nomination was for an RD, or at least that was my intent until Banedon changed it to a blurb nomination. I'm writing up a new RD nomination now, and I'm incorporating as much of the feedback from the first nom as I can. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reverted commit to the Steam Deck article[edit]

Hi, I saw you reverted my mention of the ability to run Linux applications on the Deck. I'd prefer it if that function was named there too, would you be interested in trying to hash out a way it could be done?

I'm particularly in favor of what I put there first, as I think it gets the point across quickly and cleanly. I also couldn't find much about that topic later in the article, but I might've missed something.

commit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steam_Deck&oldid=1139750474 Orowith2os (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Failed crowdfunding projects has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Failed crowdfunding projects has been nominated for merging. 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously[edit]

I'm not really kidding, please leave me alone. How many times have I asked you that in how many different ways? I'm running out of options that don't involve serious escalation. Look: we can both comment in a discussion, but you don't need to reply to me and argue with me everywhere. Please leave me alone; don't reply to me in common discussions. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Leiji Matsumoto[edit]

On 22 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Leiji Matsumoto, 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. Thryduulf (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laws Applied (“The law in question should not be included.”)[edit]

This revision (saying that “The law in question should not be included.”) appears to contradict a multitude of articles, including McConnell v. FEC, Dobbs v. Jackson, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Additionally, WWH v. Jackson involved construing contested meaning of the provisions of the act itself. What is your basis for asserting this limitation? SilverLocust (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Laws Applies is what laws were used in making the decision, not what laws were brought up until the decision. In the specific case, the decision was not based on the application of the Heartbeat law, but the application of Article III and Amendment XI. --Masem (t) 18:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that contradicts widespread practice. Roe, Dobbs, Casey, and McConnell were all pre-enforcement challenges to a statute under a provision of the Constitution. Nevertheless, each of those pages includes the challenged statute as a law applied in the case.

It is also simply false that SB 8 was not “used in making the decision”. They construed the scope of SB 8 and concluded that some of the defendants did not have authority to enforce it, so they should be dismissed, but that other defendants had indirect enforcement authority, and so should not be dismissed. That is an application of the statute. If they had agreed with Thomas’s interpretation of the statute, the rest of the state defendants would have lacked standing. That’s why Thomas partially dissented rather than concurring in judgment. That is, the disposition of the judgment depended on the court’s application of SB 8. SilverLocust (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've always taken that part of the infobox is that for the reader, it is the key takeaways on laws that were directly considered in the decision so that one knows generally why a case was decided by the overarching laws, not the specifics that were in question. For example, on Roe v. Wade, that would be the 14th Amendment moreso than the underlying law that was challenged. Yes, the other way to read that, whatever key laws were included like SB8 for this case, could be included, but that to me is less helpful to the reader. But that said, even if one takes the question presented in the petition, SB8 is not mentioned at all, so it also could be seen to make sure that law is within the infobox. If SB8/Heartbeat Law was directly mentioned in the question considered, then I would say being also in the Laws Applied is duplication. Masem (t) 19:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond is Amazing[edit]

May be acting up again if you feel like keeping an eye:[19] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FA mentorship[edit]

Hi there! A long time ago, I helped bring Skullgirls to GA status. Since then, the article has greatly expanded and I've recently started pondering the possibility of a FA nomination. I came across your username in the mentorship list, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me? Do you think the article has potential? Wani (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Gary Rossington[edit]

On 8 March 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gary Rossington, 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. —Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latest (and most likely final) issue of the WP:VG newsletter[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 14, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2023
Previous issue | Index

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2022, 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 by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Request[edit]

Please read my comments in the "The Game Awards 2022 stage interruption" deletion discussion. The goal was never to bypass any consensus. TheDonquavious (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JojoTisa[edit]

Hey Masem, why did you revert my edits while i'm putting more details in Cities: Skylines. I was trying to add the alternate refer of Cities: Skylines 2 and the changing to Entitled, but you tried to undo me twice after i making the first edit. So why did you do that sure. JojoTisa (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

You are invited to this section of the administration noticeboard, regarding the layout of the cast section of The Rock. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N[edit]

There is no policy, guideline, or project space shortcut that requires every change to a policy or guideline to be discussed first. In fact, WP:Be bold is a guideline and it explicitly applies to the project space. WP:PG (a policy) defers to "Be bold" except in the case of substantive changes to policy. This was not that; this was a change to the wording to make the existing guideline clearer and less wordy. I intend to open a talk page discussion about improving the wording of the guideline anyway once I've finished something else, but if you don't have a substantive objection to my edit, would you kindly self-revert? If you do have an objection to the substance of my edit (as opposed to just the fact of it), please detail it on the talk page. I never expected my wording to be the final version but it's no wonder our policies and guidelines explain themselves so poorly if every attempt to bring clarity is summarily reverted (in under two minutes!) without anyone even explaining why they object to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: the key policy here with respect to bold changes is WP:BRD - you can be bold, but only exactly once, and if it is reverted, it is your onus to initiate discussion. That's particularly true on P&G pages. Second, any wording change on WP:N in the past has been a mess if there wasn't prior consensus for it first - it is heavily gamed by editors trying to keep their articles or misunderstood by newer editors. It is worded as the precarious balance between multiple positions. Masem (t) 19:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worded badly. And you still haven't given a substantive objection to my edit. You're edit warring for no reason. And unless I'm blind, there's no policy tag on WP:BRD; in fact, it's an essay. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you that my experience with WP:N that even minor changes come back to be the issues of major discussion, that it is not a smart idea to be making bold edits (short of typographic issues) because it will cause more problems than you think you may be fixing with it down the road. I generally have no problem with making things briefer in the lede, but I will say that I think that your shortening changes enough meanings too broadly that it is the type of edit that will come back to haunt us. Masem (t) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine. That's a substantive objection and we can work towards a resolution on the talk page. I welcome that. As I say, I never expected my change to be the final version but rather a staring point for a discussion. But we'll never get anywhere if we treat policies and guidelines like they're carved on stone tablets. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sly-comic-2.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sly-comic-2.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) 02:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sly-thievius-raccoonus.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sly-thievius-raccoonus.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) 02:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Senua's Saga: Hellblade II[edit]

Information icon Hello, Masem. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Senua's Saga: Hellblade II, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested[edit]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at the non-free uses of File:Cameron Terrell.png and File:Salvador Ramos.png?

The subject of the first photo apparently is still-living and appears to be a free person; so, I'm not really seeing how WP:FREER is met; however, the subject's appearance appears to be one of the reasons why he ended up being acquitted instead of going to prison.

The subject of the second photo is deceased and the image is being used to identify them as the perpetrator of the Robb Elementary School shooting. I remember many similar photos being discussed at FFD, but don't remember a consensus being established to keep any of them. Moreover, the use of such a photo (at least a non-free one) appears to be contray to article talk page consensus at Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting/Archive 4#Salvador Ramos Photo?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First one is clearly not allowed. He's not stuck in prison so a free image can be made, and I see nothing in the article that spells out why that specific image was needed.
Second one should follow the prior consensus, which was no photo. Masem (t) 12:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at these. I've tagged the first one with {{rfu}} and the second one with {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Aaron Liu[edit]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 6.
Message added 15:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe it's time to archive some threads?Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for pestering but I replied again. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion[edit]

Hello. I'm reaching out to you because I tried pinging you on the AFD discussion on Bastion back on Tuesday, but haven't heard back, and I'm thinking the article is going to be merged within the next 36 hours or so once the discussion reaches a week old.

Just wanted further input from you since I believe I addressed the issues you mentioned in your rationale for merging the article. I believe I've greatly improved the article compared to the version that was nominated for deletion, adding more to the reception section and more development information about the character (outside of just gameplay elements). Soulbust (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_27&oldid=1149956592"