User talk:Masem/Archive 6

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

Rhythm Game[edit]

Hello Masem, I noticed you reverted my edit to Rhythm game earlier, and you were right to do so - at least with regard to the genre term. I've thought about it a bit more and written up my objections to the term currently used on the talk page there. I hope we (and anyone else interested) can reach a good consensus on this. Thanks! Personman (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom and User:William M. Connolley [edit]

Helo there. I understand you are an Admin. I think User: William M. Connolley, an Admin (who previously blocked me), is abusing his power at List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. He is calling my insertion of a "citation" tag (as no source is tagged for a Taiwan / RoC entry as "edit warring". I have to tread carefully because he will likely block me again if I try to revert his change. Could you wade in with yor tuppence on the relevant talk page. Otherwise, if you won't, is there a page where these sorts of complaints can be made? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown[edit]

Ireland Collaboration is melting down. Weeks and weeks of it are not getting us anywnere. Some progress has been made. See the talk page. We really need guidance from you now. -- Evertype·✆ 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Collaboration is not melting down you are. Just because things are not going your way you’re stamping your feet and lashing out at all an sundry and it’s not just me for a change. Stop now and start to behave in a reasonable and product manner. Were I think Masem is wrong I’m not long in telling them, were I think they are right equally so. But I do not come here or on the talk page pleading and imploring them to come help me so stop being ridiculous. Progress is being made, and will continue to be made but your outbursts are not helping. --Domer48'fenian' 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem, I believe the Collaboration process-in-question, is eroding my brain; ahhhhh. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider Domer's passive-agressive attacks to be uncivil and unwarranted, not to mantion full of hyperbole and stale metaphor. Be that as it may, one outstanding question remains: Some people want Pro/Con Statements to be "separate" from Position Statements. I for my part don't believe that this is feasiblel; my own Position Statement is in fact a list of Pro/Con statements. We really need guidance from you now. (Do forgive me if that final sentence there smacks of "pleading" and "imploring" and "ridiculousness". -- Evertype·✆ 07:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

So you like to play games? 98.26.147.251 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left 4 Dead 2[edit]

Treat those users well. They may be new, and not understand Wikipedia much yet, but they are well intended. Don't just throw policies at them, explain, teach, etc. Cheers, and thanks, Prodego talk 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero[edit]

I think you'd better fix that "Oppose" on your FLC... it's a great list, make it pass! igordebraga ≠ 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in the Guitar Hero On Tour series has been promoted, congrats. Shouldn't there be a colon between "Hero" and "On"? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fixed now. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll take care of fixing the links. Congrats again, and feel free to ask if you need any PR/FA/FL reviews for the FT. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Man's Talkback Notice[edit]

Please see the "RE: Image Galleries" section on Hammersoft's talk page for a reply. Since this will be going back and forth (with many replies for awhile) you might want to check it often or watchlist it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Poll material to the ballot[edit]

Masem, please see this discussion on finalizing the ballot paper. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I made the change as agreed; you may wish to check the diffs and if content lock the page again. -- Evertype·✆ 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Infamousscreen.jpg)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ratatouille-remy-control-linguini.png)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland vote - go! go! go?[edit]

Are we good to go? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are good to go. How can we assist you, Masem? Or do you want to do all the locking and announcing and so on yourself? -- Evertype·✆ 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry for the positioning but I wanted to avoid your critics below due to edit conflicts and other reasons I hope you will understand by the end of the message. I noticed the names poll and the voter profiling issue. I am not necessarily intimidated but rather discouraged from voting by "my little spreadsheet" as I wish not be drawn into these sorts of disputes or connected with one side versus the other on this issue and think I have thus far been relatively successful in that aim. My position on such a spreadsheet would probably be evident from contributions and interactions with others, etc. but usually I don't touch subjects of a political, etc. as there are several less controversial topics I enjoy getting on with, music for example. You seem to be a good person to come to in the hope of not stirring any drama or further controversy on this issue; I was simply wondering if the spreadsheet is ongoing or has it finished? Sorry for the long comment and I hope your critics are content to not pursue me for this. --C•W 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps August update[edit]

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland vote[edit]

Masem, please lock the ballot paper and we will begin the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland article names[edit]

Problem with ballot template[edit]

Hi Masem,

I'm having difficultly getting anyone to do this by the usual means. There is a problem with the voting template. It's a bug that means the template breaks for people with fancy sigs. The change fixes the bug, no more. It means too that the instructions on the ballot page need to be updated with slightly different instruction for using the template.

Could you update the template and ballot page as requested hered.

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Poll on Name[edit]

Masem; I have added back the latest update. Would you please tell me why you saw fit to remove it? Without discussion (with me)? This is especially outrageous given that the actual votes coming in are proving beyond reasonable doubt that my contention re British voting strength is correct. Are you trying to deny reality? Sarah777 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voters being intimidated[edit]

Masem,

At least two voters have removed their votes to avoid being "ethnically profiled" or being "added to some POV warriors statistics": Nanonic and Andrwsc.

It was agreed that, "Non-trivial sanctions will be imposed for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so)." At one time a straight 12-month block was aired. Voter intimidation is surely a serious matter. Can you please do something to stop it.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Adds: I've posted a copy of this message on the ballot talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a crock of shit intimidated whould you catch yourself on. BigDunc 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can an Wiki editor be intimidated? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the issue, have warned Sarah, and am checking at AN/I to see if there's a serious problem here before taking more drastic action. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious problem here, and it's you Masem and your handling of the issue. I'd suggest some drastic action, but the chances of having something done is next too zero! --Domer48'fenian' 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, the same thing was done at the vote on a name change at Macedonia and as far as I'm aware it wasn't seen as distruption, despite objections. I'd have to find a diff for you. Jack forbes (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good if you could find it Jack. BigDunc 20:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please find it and to see if the situations are compariable. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the diff here Masem. I would like to add that I objected to it, but if it was acceptable there then it should be here. Jack forbes (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the logic of all this is that all editors from sovereign Ireland (bar the 4 or 5 usual suspects) will eventually be blocked in order to preserve the nonsense that some British editors don't vote along national lines on Ireland-related articles. That proposition is absurd. Totally absurd. But we are not allowed to demonstrate that it is absurd! That is the root of 7 years of strife across Ireland-related Wiki; and still the favoured solution appears to pretend reality doesn't exist! (This is NOT personal Masem, so please don't accuse me of that at ANI) Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked that and Talk:Greece/Naming poll which a similar "tally" from Future Perfect were made but met with a large amount of resistence, and the largest difference here was that these were all leading up to the ArbCom case. In the present situation, we've already past ArbCom, so there's already some decorum that needs to be maintain. I'm not convinced from the Macadonia/Greece issue that this approach is allowed, and am still awaiting additional administrator input on the issue. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Sarah moved her 'Tally sheet' to her own userpage, would that be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to her user space and not show it to anyone else until September 14th would be fine by me. But it has to be taken off the talk page. It is evidently intimidating to some people to have their votes profiled in that way. (The banner's announcing that "profiling" was taking place, I think are also intimidating, Masem. The relevant sections should just be blanked - completely.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sensible thing to do is to follow the consensus that appears to be emerging, namely to ban profiling. My own opinion on this is that I'm not completely convinced that it is a form of intimidation, or even that it is breaking any rules or policies. It's not like the information is being gathered from off-wiki sources - it's all information available here, and public. The collation of the statistics can't even be regarded as accurate.... --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree - profiling, period, is not necessary and inappropriate; a user space copy is not needed. It should also be noted that Sarah's on restriction from a previous ArbCom case that this seems to go against as well. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem. Do you think going to Arbcom enforcement to try and get Sarah blocked is fair. You may have been right asking her to remove her text, but come on, you were really quick off the mark taking her there. This could have been sorted quickly without this. No drama, no fuss. I have a feeling most of those who disagreed with her profiling would not want her blocked, just reverted. Jack forbes (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom blocks need to be enforced. Now, I'm 100% certain this qualifies, but it feels like it, and it needs to be brought forward. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with any Arbcom ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep calm. Masem is trying to preserve the integrity of the vote and needs to be seen to play an active role. Editors have made an accusation that Sarah is deliberately intimidating voters and deliberately manupulating votes, and this is a serious accusation that needs to be dealt with (the accusation). A consensus only appears to be emerging on this issue, and IMHO the intent of Sarah must be taken into consideration. Did she intend to imtimdate editors? Was it foreseeable? It would be inappropriate to sanction an editor unless this was established, so lets give some other editors time to deliberate. --HighKing (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem removed Sarahs spreadsheet, Sarah then clearly ignored Masem by readding it and refused to accept she should stop doing it. Even on the enforcment page she is demanding the right to continue posting her spreadsheet in an attempt to influence the vote. Her own comments about her little spreadsheet shows it was aimed at trying to claim their was a British POV being imposed on this. Those accusations and attacks on most British editors are certainly unfair and when looking at the two who removed their votes its important to note one didnt even have F as his first choice. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BW, such emotive terminology only serves to needlessly exaggerate things. Sarah didn't ignore Masem; she noticed and reacted. She didn't refuse to accept; she wanted it discussed first (and now is prepared to accept). She didn't do it in an attempt to influence the vote and it goes against AGF to attribute these motives. Raising the tension like this is akin to trying to influence the ref in a soccer game; diving in the box and rolling over 5 times pretending injury. Can we just move on? --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term ignore is emotive terminology??? LMAO im sorry but i do not know another word for what she did, i certainly would not describe it as "she noticed and reacted." Masem removed her spreadsheet placed a box there clearly explaining why its was removed, Sarah ignored that box and less than 10 minutes later had re added her spreadsheet. She did refuse to stop and even now, far from saying sorry and that she will not push it any further.. she still demands the right to post it on the arbcom enforcment page.
Personally i dont have a problem with her little list, i found it amusing although i was pretty annoyed it was allowed to be on the ballot page for 24 hours. But clearly some of those who have been invited to give up their time and vote on this matter do not see the funny side. As i said before, i think its important we actually look at how the first person that withdrew voted.. They did not even back the F option as their first vote, their first preference was Sarahs vote. "Intimidation" is a bit strong, but i certainly see her actions as aimed to influence this vote and that was not done by trying to persuade people another option was better, it was trying discredit contributors based on their nationality which isnt very nice BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) How can anything Sarah does influence the vote? BigDunc 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly shows she has influenced the vote, nobody else started to profile people. [1] , Despite TWO people withdrawing their vote and Masem removing her little spreadsheet, she carried on and re added it refusing to compromise demanding the right to post it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What happened might not dealt with by the request and thus nothing may happen. At the same time, reading the Famine remedy in a different light, it runs right aground of it and should be reported. I'm not the final judge of that, that's why the request process is there. If the admins/arbcoms watching that feel there's no violation, then there's no violation. I felt that there was something, particularly when remedies are towards specific editors, and thus necessary to report it. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom ruling[edit]

User:Cadbury Wispa has broken the Arbcom ruling of moving pages using ROI/Ireland. Please see the history of the page in question [here]. The user is a sock puppet of a previous disruptive user User:Dylanmckane. Can you sort it out? Thanks.83.43.216.214 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi as a previous moderator would be able to do something about this? If not can you recommend an admin who would? Thanks83.43.216.214 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice re personal attack[edit]

I've been accused of sectarianism here. I asked the editor to retract the allegation, but he has refused. Can you advise if there is anything I can do to have the allegation removed? Mooretwin (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling request[edit]

Is it possible for you to rule on the question of stricken votes at the Ireland poll talk page to avoid further unnecessary drama brought on by my initial post? I think the issue is cut and dried on this minor question. Sswonk (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Sswonk. Masem, you yourself provide the rationale when you say that "if people want to strip their votes out that's fine, but it's acceptable (and preferable?) to strike them, as to indicate that you rescinded your vote as a statement to this poll". A "statement to this poll" is precisely a comment that is prohibited in the voting area. Therefore it is unacceptable. Remove the strikethroughs or remove the votes. Srnec (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Colons[edit]

Oh, sorry, didn't realize there was any consensus on this. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity. So close...[edit]

Masem, no doubt you've been keeping an eye on goings-on at the Ireland poll. I've been expecting you to pop in. Before I start what is going to sound like a big whinge and moan, genuinely I'd like to thank you for the huge amount of effort and time you've put in. It's a thankless job, but I'd like to at least let you know that your efforts were appreciated. But Sarah's block today by an involved admin, with no response by you or other admins (and I *know* that Sarah's Talk page is on perma-watch by dozens of admins) takes a lot of credibility out of the vote and effectively puts an end to the process. Coupled with the fact that the initial intentions behind the vote in the first place (a comprehensive compromise involving article titles and article content) has now been overtaken by numerous editors attempting to cement the status quo in place for 2 years. Arbcom did not give a mandate for that, and I did not sign up for such a process. So I'm withdrawing from the process altogether, and I don't believe that this process has any credibility any longer. It's a pity, seeing as how close we came with Mooretwins proposal. --HighKing (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i agree the 24 hour block was unfair considering all the other things that had been said on the poll talk page, Sarah is not an innocent victim in all of this. Had she not responded by calling an Admin a clown twice im sure DrK would of unblocked her and she certainly would not of been blocked from talking on her talk page and she chose not to contest the block for some reason. The block is only for 24 hours, its not like she has been stopped from taking part in the whole process, and based on several vote changes in the past 48 hours id say her recent actions / comments have hurt the chances of a non F outcome rather than helping it.
I still fail to understand how you thought the intentions of the vote in the first place was "a comprehensive compromise involving article titles and article content". Consesus failed, we could not get agreement and people from all sides (whilst i accept some opposed it) supported putting this to the community poll to end the debate once and for all because we were going round and round in circles. After the poll there has to be an effort to decide on how to handle Ireland in text and other articles like Politics of Ireland, but this vote was always meant to decide the main problem (if the state/island articles should be moved and if they should be renamed). The overwhelming majority of the people who have voted have not been involved in this issue before, its good to get outside opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick answer: I can state my feelings about the block - but impartially I cannot get involved - I can't place the block nor can I remove it, only argue for or against it. If the block was fair or not is an admin issue (as I understand, the person placing it has been part of the process, so there is some question towards that). --MASEM (t) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the most important point. How is it that an outspoken editor could be taken out of the process by an admin who participates and holds different views? How is this process credible any longer? BTW, I'm looking through the archives - can you point me to where the scope of the vote was agreed (especially the bit about 2 years). The vote is effectively in chaos - in retrospect, all blocking decisions relating to this vote should have gone through you. --HighKing (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree with HighKing. Though I regret his leaving the process. I am an optimist. -- Evertype·✆ 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giles[edit]

Well, I was looking at Dhani's goofy mug and I realized Giles Martin should be represented as well. He's clearly the most important person to the game in terms of the audio. T. H. McAllister (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B:RB gameplay screen[edit]

There's one at the Ed Sullivan Theater at the official site's promo section ([2]) but it doesn't show the vocal harmonies. Why not put the Ed Sullivan shot that's already in the article in the art production section and remove the image from the opening cinematic? At the moment, the opening cinema image only useful as a representation of what it looks like, while the Ed Sullivan image at least includes the caption detailing how the Apple archives were used to shape the in-game visuals. I'll try to set it up now. T. H. McAllister (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a gameplay screen is to be a visual aid in explaining how the mechanics work, though; not to show off a venue. I agree that the cinematic image is helpful as a representation for that paragraph, but considering the space issue, I think in-game art assets get priority over the cinematic. T. H. McAllister (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Masem, there is enough nonsense being put onto the page, do we have to endure these inane additions [3]? Tfz 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to lighten folks up with my humour. The tension there is intense. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Masem, I suppose while the tension is high at the Colab page, I should restrain my 'laid back humour'. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the little guy alone; there are more serious issues being ignored. Sarah777 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical vs. current sport logos[edit]

I know you were involved in the discussion regarding their use some time back, and wanted to bring your attention to something.

In reviewing the high use NFCC list, I'm seeing a large number of sports logos listed. I was avoiding those because of all the brouhaha it causes, but out of curiosity checked out File:Usc football logo.gif. From there, I was looking at the logo's use on 1951 USC Trojans football team (which didn't have a rationale), and a thought suddenly occurred to me. "This logo looks pretty modern for 1951". So, I went digging. I couldn't find when the logo was adopted, but I did find it was missing on O. J. Simpson's uniform in 1968, his last year on the team. The earliest use of it that I could find was in the 1970s. I removed the logo from entries from before 1970 primarily because they were missing rationales, but probably a considerably more important point was that this logo was not their logo in that day. I did a similar check on the Texas Longhorns "Bevo" logo. Interestingly enough, it quite possibly didn't come into use until 1961. See this page regarding the 1960 Cotton Bowl. Contrast with the page on the 1962 Cotton Bowl. The 1960 bowl game was famous for a brawl that erupted between the teams. Look at this photo (which is very large, and you can see details readily) of the brawl. Not one Texas player has the logo on their uniforms, nor any Texas staff member. Oops. In the 1962 page, we can see the logos on the helmets in the various images.

I think what has been happening is the people putting the logos on the "<Year> <team> season" articles are not doing any checking to see if the current logo actually applies to the seasons in question. Some logos are quite modern and were only recently invented. Some are old. But, even old ones like the Texas logo need to be checked. This is true whether the logos are free of copyright or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NGamer[edit]

Hi! Do you have a subscription to NGamer? « ₣M₣ » 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing[edit]

Don't mention it. I had to write and self-edit almost the entirety of the article for The Velvet Underground and Nico. It can be a headache. Editing the work of others is far easier than editing your own work. T. H. McAllister (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wii availability[edit]

My bad on deleting the Wii column. I didn't realize the full list was pulling information from the other three tables. T. H. McAllister (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BS[edit]

Masem, do we have to endure this dribble on a daily basis [4]. There is nobody claiming ownership to anything, and most knows that. Tfz 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that like the British not claiming ownership within the context of the term "British Isles"? Mister Flash (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's strong, but it's a bold statement of opinion - but I'm not seeing anything that is incivil. Maybe overstating the facts, but that's not blockable. (I am, however, wathcing for "gloating" just as I'm looking for sore losers. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's sheer lies, and is provocative. Tfz 02:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah made a statement saying the state should be at Ireland, i simply responded by saying looking at the vote even if F loses that will not happen. Its not got alot of support in the poll and im glad about that, because i do find it offensive the idea of the state taking the prime spot. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't blabber that the state is trying to take over NI, that is not the case, and the Belfast Agreement proves that. There is 'parity of esteem' in relation to the NI question, thank God. And Masem, talk about sore losers, what an absurdity, I never lose.) Tfz 02:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it sounded like that, i was not saying the Republic of Ireland was trying to claim ownership over the whole island, i was only talking about wikipedia. All i meant was by putting the country at the primary spot of Ireland and degrading the island in such a way does that. Thats what i find offensive, a sovereign state which has been around less than 100 years and does not fully control all of the island which has had that name for centuries does not (in my opinion) give it the right to have the prime spot. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this exemplifies what I have said: Options A, B, and F are offensive to some people, and Options A, B, and F are problematic. BritishWatcher would appear to be offended by Options A and B... Tfz would appear to be offended by Option F. Option E is getting very good support. At present I see it as the only solution (taking into account that Masem has said that the Poll gives us information about what the majority think, which can help us to make a decision when the Poll closes). -- Evertype·✆ 07:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im still not against compromise even after the poll closes, but if we are to compromise (IF F wins the poll) then it should be option D which is the middle ground between E and F that gets chosen. I dont like option E very much, id prefer D or then C. Choosing D would do away with the title people have a problem with but keep the island in the prime spot.. So each side gets something they want. Compromising to option E if F wins is unacceptable in my book because that is not compromise BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yummy, Option E just might end up being the choice afterall. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope so. (I don't think too much of BritishWatcher's protestations, or unproved notions about what "the prime spot" is. It seems to me that if F wins (since it remains not much of a solution to the perennial problem) the runner-up should be looked at first. Having said that, I have voted for C, D, and E. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO @ the runner up should be looked at. So lets get this straight, If F wins, (say with the majority it has now (like 15-20 votes which will tighten near the end) we should ignore that vote and consider what came second. So option F which has two main points the article at Republic of Ireland and the island at Ireland should be ignored and we should consider E which moves the island from the prime spot it deserves AND changes the title. How on earth is that compromise, especially if F wins.. thats clearly unacceptable. I hope everyone will be so willing to ignore the vote if F loses... Complete double standards, we all know if F loses this by just 1 vote Republic of Ireland title is gone for ever. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How old are you? "LMAO". The article "deserves" some particular title? You yourself have said you consider compromise... and now you give two fingers to that? I have no "double standards". I'm looking for an end to this horror. The one thing that's guaranteed is that "F" won't bring an end to it. Be a realist, and start working with us rather than considering us your effing enemies all the time. -- Evertype·✆ 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry lmao is how i respond when i see something so stupid it makes me laugh. I have said clearly i support compromise, but im telling you now compromising to option E if F wins is totally unacceptable. D is the only moderate middle ground between E / F. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pfffff. You're drawing another line in the sand without looking at the analysis. -- Evertype·✆ 00:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im just looking at the options, and i do not see how option E (especially if F wins) is a compromise. Supporters of F lose out on both fronts if E is chosen as an alternative. The island will be moved and the state article renamed. Surely a far more reasonable compromise (the only one i think would work) is D which keeps the setup the majority of people have voted for (so far) but changes the name some people have a problem with. I see that as a reasonable compromise and if others are prepared to support it then ill go along with it. I dont see people willing to compromise by choosing E though. I have a far bigger problem with the idea the island article is moved rather than the ROI title changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you never, ever seem to actually offer a compromise. Nor have you been watching the Poll. Currently, most people are supporting F. The second largest group supports E. The third largest group supports C. After that comes B, D, and A. So D isn't very popular. Given a choice between the status quo F, which many people may like but which does not SOLVE a longstanding problem, and a different configuration E that many editors can also support, I say we try E for two years. If it were a dismal failure, we would know it. But you're just drawing lines in the sand. -- Evertype·✆ 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout, we all wait until September 13 & see what's what? Let the dust settle. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm i offered compromise on the talk page with a few conditions, others did not go along with it and it was clear one of the conditions i consider vital (accepting ROI is not British POV) would not be followed or accepted by some of those demanding change. E is coming second to F, under no circumstances can we just choose the second option in such a way. Wed have to rule out E and F and come up with a compromise and D is the only reasonable one for many supporters of F. Its the half way point. Supporters of E get the ROI title changed, supporters of F get the island kept at Ireland. I would say thats fair but people can not be pressured into accepting compromise, which is what i consider the claims nothing will change if we keep the status quo are. You say im the one drawing the lines in the sand yet you seem to be demanding E is chosen for 2 years even though its obvious many supporters of F do not like that option. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, its still to early to say F has won for sure anyway, F doesnt have that much of a lead in the final round. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification procedure[edit]

By accident I came across User:Wgh001 editing the RoI article and remembered he/she had been ivolved in the debate at some stage. Yet no notification of the poll was posted on the user's page. How is that? I thought everyone involved in the debate was going to be notified? (I have now added the template). Sarah777 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notification went personally to anyone listed on the IECOLL - every other notification was through the country or continent WP that were listed. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV please?[edit]

I know you're an experienced VG page editor, so I thought I'd let you know that I flagged the Compilation packs for the Grand Theft Auto series article for deletion. I think it's pretty obvious that the article needs to be deleted, but ould you express your opinion here? VG Editor (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah777 removing comments from talk page.[edit]

Hi Masem - since you're the mediator, or whatever, at the IECOLL poll, I thought I would bring this to your attention. User:Sarah777 removed this comment by Srnec from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names, calling it a personal attack against her. I think that the case for this being a personal attack is questionable, and that, at any rate, if anyone is going to be removing it, it should not be her. (Personally, I'm pretty dubious of the merit of removing all but the most egregious personal attacks from non-user talk pages. Taken too far, this can be chilling to debate, and gives a false sense of what is said. As such, I restored it. Sarah then removed it again, and posted a note on my talk page accusing me of a personal attack by restoring it. At any rate, I really don't want to get into it again with Sarah, so I thought I'd just point it out to you and leave you to decide what to do. Thanks for your attention. john k (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is clearly a personal attack on me. I'll post the Triangle of Civility here if needs be. I find it an infallible guide. As for removing personal attacks after they have been restored: JK posted a personal attack on me which was restored by another F voter. He then apologised (but didn't remove it) only to launch another attack via the "restoration" route. I don't see why I need be too sensitive to tag-teaming attackers. Sarah777 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is the Triangle of Civility? Neither a wikipedia search nor a google search bring up anything. john k (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This matter should've been between Srnec & Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er no, she never told Srnec she had removed his comment, rather she decided to remove it, and then edit war over it with a third party, claiming admin Chillum gave her permission to do so. When pulled up for this half truth, she responded by attacking Chillum's record of judgement, on somebody else's talk page!. And now she is just generally messing with the talk page. See this. I don't think anything should be just left to Sarah to deal with, she clearly needs close supervision. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note Masem, that you didn't deal with the personal attack on me by MacMickMee, so I presume you reckon a robust exchange of views between us is OK? Sarah777 (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time saying that the comment was a personal attack, nor can I see a problem with Sarah removing it if she takes it that way, so there's no admin action here, but I am watching to see if it escalates, (which I noted in the warning of moving that one section over from the ballot to IECOLL). It takes two to get into these and I can't point any figures just yet. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so people can remove comments that they think are personal attacks, and then you won't tell them to stop it even though you don't think it was a personal attack? Isn't this just an invitation to Sarah to remove whatever she wants from the talk page? Either it's a personal attack, in which case I guess the consensus is that it's acceptable for Sarah to remove it, or it's not a personal attack, in which case it should not be acceptable for Sarah to remove it. john k (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that per the Triangle of Civility I have endured personal attacks by JK, DJ, MacMickMee and Evertype, almost without protest. Plus an IP. And that's only this week. I must retain, per Chillum, the right to zap attacks on me with extreme prejudice. I'm fairly confident you'll support me on this Masem. And note that since you censored my spreadsheet while I have whined mightily I have made no effort to re-introduce it. And that has nothing to do with you reporting me to Arbcom. Honest. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum gave you no permission to edit war over so called 'personal attacks' (please notice how nobody endorses your view of what's an attack), and I'm sure he would no longer support you in anything if he knew how you are throwing his endorsement around one minute, and slagging him off the next. And you did more than just whine over the profiling data, you edit warred over it, something I am sure Masem has not forgotten. And your response to Srnec is priceless given Good Days's misplaced faith in you not two hours previously. You need extremely close supervision. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot put you as "innocent" in all these issues as there is enticement in your language - but nothing that calls for any admin action - and thus I'm not taking any action against those others. If it does continue to the determinent of the poll or moving forward, I will seek for blocks on everyone involved, whether it's you or them. IECOLL and the ballot talk page should be able the issue, and not about the editors or the people voting. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Lord,again with the threats! Is that all you can do? I note you are threatening a whole raft of editors on both sides of the NPOV issue on the poll talkpage just now. I think you need extremely close supervision. I'm thinking of appointing myself to the job, now that you've persisted in forcing your way into my field of vision. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. I do not, of course, refer to Masem! @MacMeeSarah777 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly nonsense[edit]

Masem, I think it would be a good idea to remove all unfounded spin from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names page, as it can get quite tedious having to read the same bald untruths day after day. Tfz 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao @ unfounded spin, we all know which side is spinning the most. Why on earth we had to have this last 42 days i dont know, i think we are all starting to get sick to death of everything. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly correct, Get indigestion when I read some of the input. Tfz 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFC images in lists[edit]

If I remember rightly, it was you who drafted the "images in lists" text adopted at WP:NFC. Can I ask if you could have a look at this discussion at DRV on images of characters from The Mighty Boosh ?

Specifically, am I out of line, or is J. Milburn's latest comment essentially completely ignoring and completely out of step with what was quite a hard thrashed-out consensus? And does my presentation of how the guidance fits with policy more or less get right what you had in mind when you wrote it?

The discussion could use some neutral policy analysis. Jheald (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish naming Poll, talkpage[edit]

Hiya Masem. Full protection of that talk-page until September 13 (2009), would be fine with me. I'm getting scared to go out at night. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National network television schedules[edit]

Masem,

If you have a chance, I'd like to get with you concerning the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules. I'm quite worried that sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic content is going to be deleted by a group of deletion-happy editors who don't understand the value of what they're proposing for deletion because they don't work in that area. As I said earlier in the discussion, the schedules themselves are the subject of non-trivial coverage in many respected sources; I'm disturbed by several of the current remarks, some of which seem to be so senseless as to make me think these editors can't possibly be paying attention to what they're saying (for example, the editors who propose deletion based on WP:NOT a directory; given what #4 says, is it even possible to take such a comment seriously?). What can be done in a discussion where editors aren't paying the least bit of attention to the policies they're citing? Your advice is appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Gh5 logo.jpg)[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gh5 logo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Guitar-hero-van-halen-logo.jpg)[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Guitar-hero-van-halen-logo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More altering of Voting Area[edit]

Masem, just thought you should know that there's been even more altering of the voting area with this edit. This clearly should have only been done by you, and only after some considering of the facts. Just because this editor is *now* blocked as a sock doesn't necessarily mean that the vote should be discounted since there's no evidence that he abuses his voting by multiple vote-casting. I expect you should at least make a decision and let it be known on the Talk page... not that I'm endorsing this vote in any way either.... --HighKing (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All confirmed un-announced socks should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the sock-puppetry is related to this poll. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but you're the moderator. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do i, i dont understand how we can we allow confirmed sock puppets to take part in the vote, should automatically result in a removal even with no connection to this matter. I have removed one vote [5] from the voting page because it was by a user account clearly created after the deadline. I removed it when i saw it because when i previously asked on the talk page if regular checks were being made on these things the response gave me no confidence at all that these things were being looked into. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You presume too much. --HighKing (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Votes by sock puppets or meat puppets (and their masters) or similar will be removed from the balloting area" - case closed thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okami sequel rumours[edit]

Hi Masem,

Why not mention the rumours, as long as it's made clear that they are, for now, just rumours? It's the only other information we've really got on a possible sequel for Okami, so I thought it would be worth mentioning - especially since Okamiden could well be short for Okami Gaiden or Okami Densetsu, ie. an Okami spin-off or Legend of Okami. It's certainly very tantalising, especially since this is happening only a short time before Okami for Wii is being released in Japan, thus potentially sparking new interest in a sequel.

Regards, Alphard08 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal seemed to me to be ruling out speculation (that has not been backed up by verified sources) by the user who is contributing to the article, which isn't really the case here since the rumours are rather wide-spread at this point... still, as long as it has been made clear that this is a rumour only and there's still no confirmation, I don't see how it could hurt to include just a sentence or two.
For instance, in the Legend of Zelda (series) article, there is a short sentence about how IGN speculates that the girl in the concept poster for Zelda Wii may be the Master Sword. That's unverified too, but it expands and adds interest to the article.
Regards, Alphard08 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland struck vote discussion on Talk page[edit]

Masem, to be clear:

  1. The section heading in the rules concerning sock puppets states Procedures for dealing with fraud:. There is no evidence of fraud in this case - why did the other editor invoke an anti-fraud process?
  2. The vote was cast on 3rd August. The sock account was created on 16th August. Both accounts were banned within a few days. Why does this invalidate the vote, especially in light of point one above?

I ask other editors to refrain from adding to this section until Masem has a chance to respond. Feel free to start your own section if you like... --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the user doing the socking had already been reprimanded in the similar naming case for Macadonia (way back), and thus the motive for using the sock here is very unclear. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Masem, thank you for responding. I asked two questions. I think you're answering the 2nd question, but you're not answering it in relation to the point about his sock being created 2 weeks after he cast his vote. Also, your response doesn't indicate that any fraud was taking place - in fact, it doesn't give *any* grounds for striking the vote. I don't believe that his socking offense or his sock account has any bearing on this particular case, especially given that there was 2 weeks between the vote and the sock account creation. If there are no grounds for striking the vote, please reinstate it. --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Masem, not sure if you've seen the response above? Also, do you patrol the vote Talk page? You should pop in - sometimes your guidance is required. --HighKing (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus Task Force[edit]

Hi there. Currently I'm looking for active editors to participate in the Atlus Task Force, a proposed task force of WikiProject Video games which covers articles related to Atlus and its products. I noticed that you've contributed quite a bit to Persona 3 and Persona 4, so would you be interested in helping out? If so, could you please leave a comment on WP:VG's talk page. Thanks! Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious votes[edit]

Masem, two votes in the Ireland poll struck me as being particularly suspicious. In an excahnge with RedKing, I (for better or for worse) identified them as potential sock/meat puppets on the ballot talk page. What I wrote was as follows:

  • Kavathes seems to be a sock puppet related to the Macedonian vote. He/she's only contribution before voting in this poll was to leave the same message relating to "Μακεδονία" (i.e. Macedonia) on several users talk pages on the 1 May this year.
  • Insectgirl appears to be a meat puppet. His/her only contribution before placing a vote here was to various topics relating to butterflies on the 15/17 August last year. According to his/her talk page, he/she did so then at the behest of his/her family. I suspect he/she voted here too at the behest of his/her family also.

Insectgirl has since removed her vote citing my comment. (I should say that I further find it suspicious that he/she would/could do so - i.e. that an editor that contributed only for two days in 2008, only logging in again to place a vote one year later, should spot a comment expressing susicion about him/her within a few hours of it being made. For someone who did not make a single edit for over a year after registering, or a single once since casting her vote, he/she sure had an eagle eye on that page!)

HighKing has opened a thread discussing my comments and Insectgirl's withdrawl of her vote. Can you express a view on these two votes and my comments on them? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably unwise to name the accounts in question, there are a few more that are very odd aswell. In the case of insectgirl, nobody said the vote should be removed, it was an understandable and obvious observation, the response to it was also highly suspect considering the account has been inactive since the vote until all of a sudden noticing the poll, but RA has apologised on their talk page if he was wrong. Had general sock sweeps been taking place, perhaps people would not have concerns about certain votes. The lack of safeguards is worrying. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RA has apologised?? He wrote a qualified statement, which admits no wrongdoing, and attempts to justify what he has done. If I was incorrect in what I wrote, my apologies, but you can surely appreciate my concern is not an apology no matter which we you try to present it. Just as accurate to say "RA has now followed Insergirl to her Talk page and is justifying his accusation of sockpuppetery". --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "RA has apologised on their talk page if he was wrong." - that fits in with what he said "if i was incorrect in what i wrote, my apologies". How is what i said spin? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's total spin to use the word "Apologised" in the same sentence as RA's statement, and it's total spin to attempt to describe that statement as an apology. It's another concealed threat, designed to scare off an obvious newbie editor, especially the bit about having concerns. --HighKing (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm i guess i should google the definition of apologies then because i obviously misunderstand it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see another inactive account has come out of the woodwork, can we not have sock checks done on such accounts. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a problem with such sock puppets is that we can't instigate a check without having a second account or IP address that is suspected tied with the account. Just because a long-idle account is active is not sufficient. There's nothing that can be done without a second account to be considered. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr they should be able to check the whole list of users and see if any possible matches pop up. Im sure thats technically possible, its ashame they dont take these things seriously, we should of considered banning an inactive account (from 6 months or a year) something like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Masem, I hope your statement was unintentionally ambiguous and if so, please reconsider the statement you've just made because using the phrase "Just a problem with such sock puppets" is strongly implying that you agree with BW's beliefs and agree the inactive accounts are sock puppets (including Insectgirl). The rest of your statement also lends weight to this. If you do share that believe, you should resign immediately. But like Sswonk says, this process has proved to be flawed. --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant sockpuppet accusations. I have no opinion on the two referred two above beyond it's a little strange, but nothing beyond what we're supposed to assume good faith towards in considering socking. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watching this from a self-imposed hiatus since the 8-13 "chill", I am beginning to wonder if the easiest compromise to be reached at this point would be one in which Masem freezes the entire process as "flawed", for several reasons, and begins discussion of the possibility of restaging the vote with a revised set of rules, and possibly choices. Sswonk (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a freeze and us going back to the drawing board, but that is a very big call to make now the vote is more than half way in. (cant believe we still have 3 weeks of this left lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I wonder how many more edits Brenji will make ... or will this be like his/her/their visit of 15 June 2007 when they popped in solely to move the ROI article before vanishing into the night of ages once more? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scartboy (talk · contribs) is probably worth a look too. I get the feeling there is some off-wiki canvassing going on. Rockpocket 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol only "probably"?, im not sure if its off wiki canvassing, i think its probably the talk page showing that there is nothing at all that can be done to stop people using Socks and they will get away with it. So now people are digging out their old accounts, knowing they can get away with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Masem. I've modified my opinon on this topic & am acceptable to your & HighKing's views. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to help finish up the GLaDOS article I'm working on?[edit]

Or at least, help me finish up. I've basically added most of what I'm going to add (maybe some more reception), but it's really just sourcing, copyediting, and placement of certain comments from developers, reviewers, and others. You can find it here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hate to bother, but could you do a history merge of it into GLaDOS? Don't want to lose the user page history or the original history (especially since I used some of the content from the original article). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankya! Now I just have to figure out which quote(s) to use for voice samples, and whether one or two would be necessary (to show the difference between the two voices mentioned), or if I should maybe use a clip from Still Alive. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is finding an image to use; not easy when the character is rarely shown. Also, what do you think of this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on Peggle[edit]

I love the game Peggle. When I read the article here, it definitely looked like some serious work went into it. After going through the history, it looks like a large chunk of the article was written by you. So, I'm here to say thanks! It's definitely one of the better games that PopCap Games has released recently; I figure that Bejeweled is usually considered their masterpiece, but I never really liked it all that much; same goes with Zuma. I think that Plants vs. Zombies is the bee's knees though, and probably a bit better than Peggle actually because it involves less luck and requires more strategy :) Gary King (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Guitar Hero 5... 3 months to FL... blah blah blah[edit]

- ;) rst20xx (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to bring to your attention two projects of mine:[edit]

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Still Alive (not MY project, but I'm giving it a push towards article-dom).
User:New Age Retro Hippie/The cake is a lie (not sure if this will work, especially since Google searching is harder considering all the darned forums and comments sections that use the phrase)

Three other ideas I have are the Weighted Companion Cube, Chell, and the Portal Gun, but I have a good feeling that the latter two are not significant enough to warrant their own articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did have the usage of the meme as part of an anti-Scientology demonstration. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ico TFA[edit]

I noticed that Ico's North American release was on September 24, which is coming up...have you considered nominating it for Today's Featured Article? It might not have many points since Vagrant Story was on the main page August 10 and Ico has been FA for less than a year, but if no other articles are nominated for that date it might be worth a shot at least... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...actually, it looks like someone is planning on nominating Pinkerton (album) for that day [6]. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add that we just had not only a VG article (Crush was on the 8th) but that it would be another one by me, and basically you have something with no shot to be picked through the TFA nomination process. Its best chance is its 10th anniversary in 2011, if it is not otherwise randomly selected by Raul. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice Crush. I'll just keep my fingers crossed for 2011! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is possibly the release of The Last Guardian as a tie-in title, but... --MASEM (t) 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLaDOS second sound file?[edit]

I think that because GLaDOS is more about her audio than her imagery, and an article can often sustain three fair use images that warrant use, I think this article could sustain an image and two sound files easily. Anyway, my proposal is that a second sound file be added to demonstrate the change from a computerized voice to an insane voice. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator[edit]

Post 217 article?[edit]

Hmm, well, I think the notion of a P217 article is sustainable; Scribblenauts' article seems like it'll be just big enough, and Post 217 might seem a bit extra if included in full. It's certainly proven itself as a meme, and has had multiple official responses from 5th Cell. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

I have nominated Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ArcAngel (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Rock Band track packs[edit]

I have nominated List of Rock Band track packs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rock Band track packs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ArcAngel (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

I have nominated 2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ArcAngel (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

I have nominated 2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ArcAngel (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

I have nominated 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ArcAngel (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming Poll[edit]

Thankfully, there hasn't been too much hostilities since yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happened! Stercus quo, ha ha! Tfz 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, please restore User:Matheuler vote [7] which should not have been removed [8]. Its clear the vote was removed because the persons first edit [9] was on "04:02, 8 August 2009", after the cutoff point. However the user log [10] shows the account was created 27 July 2006 but not used until August 2009.

The vote there for must be restored right away and a full recount take place along with a second declaration following this new information, sadly noone picked up on this before. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of poll tampering means the vote is declared invalid. --HighKing (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many votes were tampered with? GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking me, I don't know for sure. At least two, probably more. --HighKing (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly not "poll tampering". The vote was removed for obvious reasons, it was an honest mistake. Which can be corrected now by restoring that vote and recounting. Although the fact remains this does not impact on which option won the poll. Only ONE vote was incorrectly removed. A sock was rightly removed and i would strongly oppose readding a confirmed SOCK. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 2 votes being allegedly tampered with, hardly justifies invalidating the whole Poll. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the vote is still valid and this issue can be fully addressed if the vote is simply restored and recounted. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Masem. I fear that my advice isn't be followed at the post-Poll discussions. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Alive?[edit]

Still Alive (song) I'm not sure if it's entirely big enough (I've never really worked on any song article before except for Super Mario Bros. theme). What do you think? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation[edit]

I can't really find any serious attempt by you to actively or strongly encourage the compromise that was mentioned. Sometimes moderation requires passion and more than a laissez-faire hand on the tlller. You may disagree. But I feel that much effort—on my part and the part of others—has been wasted. My faith in the ArbCom process is about nil. I instigated this process in order to try to get a solution to a long-standing problem. We haven't got one. -- Evertype·✆ 10:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Masem, you're doing alright. There's alot of strong political emotions behind these Troubles related topics & it's great to see that you can remain calm. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as Troubles, it's a simple naming issue. If people succeed to make trouble, then it is Wikipedia's at fault. Tfz 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some people need to get a dictionary and actually learn what a 'moderator' does and does not do. MickMacNee (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish those people well. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have "strong emotions" regarding the political elements of this dispute. And I never have. I am disappointed at the failure for conflict resolution to have resolved anything. -- Evertype·✆ 22:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not political with me, but some editors have striven to make this political, and still do. As much as I AGF on a personal level. Tfz 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please update your status with WP:VG[edit]

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a particular source you may have come across[edit]

Masem, you've gone through a number of development sources for Tales of Monkey Island back when that was first announced, I was wondering if you'd come across one particular source I'm after. Its an interview, possibly in video form, with either Grossman or Stemmle, in which they explain their reasoning for choosing the British actor from CMI over the American actor in EMI for Elaine in TMI; I recall its vaguely connected to the fans' view of the character. Does that ring any bells? I want to use it for Elaine Marley's development section, but I can't for the life of me find where I first saw it. It doesn't seem to be in any of the sources currently in the TMI article. I'm rather hoping that you may have encountered it in the sources you've been through. -- Sabre (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary images[edit]

I'm doing some last-minute cleanup before I nominate Saints Row 2 for GA-status. Obviously, one or two of the images will need to go from Gameplay and Synopsis sections to meet the criteria. Now, I'm asking you for help because nobody gave me a reply when I inquired at the WikiProject VG page and I know you have experience on the matter. Which images do you personally think should go? Thanks, VG Editor (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD[edit]

I know you have had interest in date formatting in the past, so thought you may perhaps have interest in following or being involved in the discussion of the YYYY-MM-DD format that is ongoing at [11] at the moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Would you be willing to certify an RFC against Gavin.collins? Hiding T 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles: Rock Band[edit]

Sorry for the wait; I've been busy with school and family lately. I'll definitely give the reception section of the article a check, as well as a general review of the entire article. T. H. McAllister (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That took waaaaay longer than I thought it would. A few small edits around the entire article, as well as a general restructure to the reception section (most of which was simply reordering the first half). Hope that helps. Good luck with FA! T. H. McAllister (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Fandango[edit]

Hi. I don't know if you have any interest in updating the article with new information; some people, myself included, will get something to FA and leave it alone. However, on the off chance that you are interested, I thought I'd tell you that, while working on the Online print archive, I located information not included in the article. The first is an extensive Computer Gaming World preview, with quotes about the game taking influence from Super Mario 64, among other facts. I also found four reviews from notable print publications, including Computer Gaming World and PC Gamer, and an article from Computer Games Magazine that contains numerous quotes from Schafer about the game's conception and development. Like I said: I don't know if you want it, but if you do, there it is. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Guitar Hero 5[edit]

Congrats on the FL promotion, but be sure to fix the dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 04:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duomodimilano[edit]

Hi! Please have a look at this diff. Cafone doesn't seem to be exactly a compliment. Could you help? Thank you!--93.45.120.166 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero 5 - Playstation 2 Limitations section[edit]

I couldnt find much on ps2 limitations for gh5. the cover does say rock with 2 guitars OR 2 Basses, that might help the multitap section. there are pics out there on the internet of the ps3 or wii or 360 that are of the song list and i could take a picture of the ps2 songlist because on the bottom of the others it has challenges but not on the ps2 version. I also think that the downloadable songs thing is stated in the article already. NTC TNT (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I've changed this topic name from "help" to something more informative.)

Hi, I'm a newbie who added a small new section about PS2 limitations. It got reverted my Masem: "Reverted good faith edits ...; Not necessary (at least as standalone section)."

Yeah it was a pretty small section but I did it that way as it seemed to be in keeping with the existing "Wii-specific features" section, and it could grow larger too.

Any suggestions how to get this PS2 info onto the page then? This really is new info that's close to non-existent on the net. I spent some time trying to find out about the PS2 version but all so-called "PS2 GH5" reviews around are actually generic GH5 reviews without mention of all the bits missing from the PS2 version. I think this info is needed.

146.195.128.174 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinsmanau here, I'm "146.195.128.174" ... I've now got a proper account.  :)

Being a newbie I stuffed up a bit - I didn't check the GH5 page before making the above comment. Looks like before that someone else came along and put my "PS2 Limitations" section back in. I guess there's a demand out there to keep the info. So can we leave it in now Masem without it getting reverted? Thanks.

Skinsmanau (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to make Scribblenauts a GA[edit]

May I have the permission to promote Scribblenauts as a good article? Please respond ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race: about the fanny pack...[edit]

For The Amazing Race 15, it was shown that Zev and Justin had their fanny pack. Obviously they placed the passport in another bag or something, so could this rule be made slightly clearer? Thanks Mylife2702 07:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylife2702 (talk • contribs)

Resources.[edit]

Why aint they significant? They're used onmany game review pages, Gears of War 2 for example.

Goku1st (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image use policy clarification[edit]

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see what I mean[edit]

See what I mean about wikipedia being an administrative cesspit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.196.158 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of news events[edit]

You made a comment about rewriting Wikipedia:Notability (news events), but it was truncated.[12] Could you comment on the talk page of the proposal about your reservations? Fences&Windows 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured[edit]

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly remove GLaDOS' image and replace with a sound file?[edit]

I think that the image of GLaDOS, while it gives some idea, isn't really important, as GLaDOS is almost never cited for her appearance as far as I can tell, but for her personality and the way her voice changes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation categories.[edit]

Regarding User:Koavf removing Category:PlayStation 3 games from games already in Category:PlayStation 3-only games, can you and User:ChimpanzeeUK liase and let me know a list of articles or a way to build a list of articles so that I can sort the mess out. Is it as simple as adding Category:PlayStation 3 games to all articles in Category:PlayStation 3-only games which do not currently have it? Cross posted to User talk:ChimpanzeeUK. Hiding T 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload to Commons[edit]

Hello Masem,

I noticed you uploaded several pictures related to The Beatles: Rock Band from Flickr to Commons. However, you did not categorise the pictures. You surely have noticed the CommonsCat box at the end of The Beatles: Rock Band article, which leads to the relevant category (which I created two weeks before your last uploads). It would be nice if you could categorise pictures you upload, at the very least in the root Commons:Category:Video games so that Commonists can spot it and put it into the relevant categories. An uncategorized picture is as good as lost on Commons.

Also, the Flickr Web Tools allow to use a different name than the one used on Flickr. A title like "File:The Beatles Rock Band - Höfner Bass.jpg" is much more useful than "File:Hofner noBG.jpg".

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachet And Clank[edit]

You mentioned "For example, I have such a table in Guitar Hero because of the number of platforms the series has covered, but I would not use one for Ratchet & Clank since that has been pretty much one platform per game (with two exceptions).". Could you elaborate? Which article? Guitar Hero (video game), Guitar Hero? Ratchet & Clank or Ratchet & Clank (series)? Where are the two exceptions; can you expand?174.3.111.148 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus says that tables are not appropriate on Touhou Project. What is the reason a table is used in Ratchet & Clank (series)?174.3.111.148 (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a table on R&C, because all the games are single platform titles. There's no new data besides title, year, platform, and summary. Same reason for Touhou. On Guitar Hero (series article), the game spans multiple platforms per title, so a summarty table is good. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Touhou Project should show title, year, platform, and summary? Please drop me a line at my talk page.174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters[edit]

is glados the only game character who is in one game that has an article?--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than enough info about Glados outside of the game at the current time to be relevant outside of it, even if is just a single appearance. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHICH PART OF Opposing Force Blue Shift · Decay and Counter-Strike Online did VALVE CORP develop then??--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious[edit]

Which actor were you referring to in your example? Just curious. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 22:54, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Morrison from House. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:54, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Band Hero[edit]

I understand your concerns; I was just doing so because another user had improperly started a split (I'm not really big on splitting articles like that either, but it was already half done, so....) Thank you for the notice, I'll remember that for the future!-- fetchcomms☛ 01:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography page guideline proposal[edit]

Hi Masem,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Иван Богданов civility problems[edit]

Hi Masem. I wanted to let you know that User:Иван Богданов left another personal attack on my talk page, referring to you and I as gay buddies. I don't personally care, and I'm sure you don't either. But since you warned him previously, I wanted you to be aware. I placed a warning on my talk page in response to him, and to be unambiguous about this issue, I placed at uw-npa2 on his talk page [13]. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left 4 Dead 2[edit]

Regarding this edit, I think "unneeded" would have been a far better edit summary. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Tower[edit]

I got a question. Are you gonna fail Sim Tower? You held it for 13 days. Just wanna know. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sim Tower GA[edit]

Feel free to close it if you have to. You were asking for more information and doing research is very time consuming, so I haven't gotten around to it yet. Gary King (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vgy[edit]

Template:Vgy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability RfC[edit]

Hi Masem, please see my recent restoration of the consensus-supported version of WP:N. Regarding the recent discussion at WT:N, I agree that some sort of RfC is needed in order to establish a consensus regarding the information discussed. Would you be interested in setting it up? If so, how would you like it to be framed? Also crossposted at FT2's, Hiding's, and Gavin's talk pages. ThemFromSpace 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Sometimes a second opinion is very helpful. :) I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Space (Spoilers)[edit]

Wikipedia does use spoilers under a plot/ending format. The plot section here should indicate where the story progresses into "ending" territory, as the nature of the final twists is integral to the enjoyment of this work of art. Instead of a general flag, as I used before, we should determine where to stick an "ending" section heading. The plot should cover the basic and introductory story information, i.e. back of the box blurb, and the ending should cover the final few chapters (where the story digresses into its final stages).

"Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler

In this case, I think that the article would best be served by isolating the final two paragraphs of the "plot" heading under a new, "ending" heading. Do you agree?

This was done in good faith, but do you think it reads awkwardly? In any case, the summary needs some clean-up. Connor Towle 02:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Convicious (talk • contribs)


Orphaned non-free image (File:Band hero logo.jpg)[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Band hero logo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 04:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved party[edit]

File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png has been brought to my attention. So what is the turnout of this discussion? (Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/October#Proof) Is it copyrighted or not? Cause if its not, you would've think someone would change it earlier. Project FMF (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text for Ōkami[edit]

Alt text is now a requirement for featured articles. I thought it might be a good idea to go ahead and include some for Ōkami and any other higher class articles to which you've heavily contributed. ~ Hibana 01:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Crasher Squirrel[edit]

I have nominated Crasher Squirrel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crasher Squirrel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus Contribs 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Fandango tidbit[edit]

Don't know if you want to include this or not, but Grim Fandango was originally titled "Deeds of the Dead" according to GamesRadar[14] (number 85 on the list). Your call. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Program guides[edit]

Hi. I semi-randomly selected you (Firsfron, Masem, Protonk) as major participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules, which I didn't follow closely. The subject has arisen again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Forbidding programme guides, and I was wondering if any of you could give a short/neutral summary at the VPump, of what the WT:NOT thread's consensus was, if any. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lrbtitle.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lrbtitle.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Gavin.collins[edit]

I'm drafting an RFC on Gavin at User:Hiding/RFC, appreciate any input you may have. Hiding T 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jak daxter lost frontier.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jak daxter lost frontier.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music of The World Ends with You?[edit]

I was wondering if you'd think there would be something to this? I mean, it has a few soundtracks, and in my searches for sources on Neku Sakuraba, I noticed some praise for its music tracks. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a second album out now? It's possible, but I haven't seen much english commentary on the first album, which is probably going to be necessary for that. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Replaceable fair use File:Djhero-peripheral.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Djhero-peripheral.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sk8er5000 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Star[edit]

Red Star

Congratulations, Masem! It's my pleasure to award you December 23, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan - Merry Christmas! - 00:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The End of Time[edit]

Hi,
Could you not have perhaps joined the conversation on the discussion page about the edit of mine you undid. I would like to know why you disagreed with my reasoning as I assume your edit was made in good faith also. I made a good argument for my edit and the people who originally disagreed with me did not continue the discussion after I countered their contests. If my reasoning for the addition cannot be countered then the addition should be there. Please add to the discussion and dispute my reasoning.

I hope that this can be resolved amicably.
Regards and good wishes,
Thetictocmonkey 18:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, then, you could have moved my edit to another section of the article as apposed to deleting it entirely.
Why are there continuity sections for so many of the Doctor Who episode pages if this is not considered good practice?
Thank you for your speedy reply,
Thetictocmonkey 18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps update[edit]

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed[edit]

Hi! I reviewed the article Guitar Hero: On Tour series, and it passed as a Good Article (yes, I am a reviewer. You can see proof at WP:Good article nominations/List of reviewers). To see why it passed, see Talk:Guitar Hero: On Tour series/GA1, and see the top of the articles' talk page to see which topic it was listed under (it was listed under Video game series, but that's listed under Everyday Life, so technically, it was actually listed under Everyday Life). Just letting you know in case you were curious about the results. --Hadger 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains cast[edit]

I removed the heroes_vs_villains entries from the previous seasons' infoboxes because I couldn't find a reliable source for the cast of Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains. The main article revision history (for H v. V) says CBS won't officially announce until the 10th. -- BullWikiWinkle 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Plastikspork pointed out the discussion on the HvV talk page. -- BullWikiWinkle 04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes on my last editing of "Die Hard with a Vengance"[edit]

I sincerely apologized for my comment on that last summary edit of the film. It was so not true. I'm sorry. I am really sorry. I ask for your forgiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjong705 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my ferris beuller edit[edit]

Is there really fines in the US for age 17-18 students who don't attend optional schooling? That sounds crazy to me. In the UK people can essentially do what they want once they have reached 16. 86.133.230.9 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-block it is :)[edit]

Thanks for not blocking me. I would be very limited if you did. I just said for you to revert the edit and delete the picture without blocking me. Kay? I won't do it again. Blocky cuzco (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images[edit]

Hey, I put hard effort and work on that picture. How will people know what the 6 LocoRoco look like? Just yellow? They'll think that. What should I do? Post it on the wikimedia commons? Blocky cuzco (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit help[edit]

Hey. The FAC nomination for Supernatural (season 2) will probably be ending later this week, and a user has demanded that I get a copy-edit done for the article. Could you please, if you don't mind, copy-edit the article? It's already been copy-edited three times, and the user's demand is pretty much based on what he considers to be over-linking, so I don't think there will be much work to do for it. Thanks. :) Ωphois 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRL/ROI[edit]

Hello again, Masem -

I'm sure you thought (hoped even!) that you had heard the last of this but consensus was (finally) reached on how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other context over at WP:IECOLL. I summarised the outcome of the WP:IECOLL process on the Ireland MOS. You can this summary here.

HighKing is unhappy with this summary. His changes were reverted by Mooretwin, BrownHairedGirl and Superfopp.

Could you look over the summary for fairness and factuality?

It is also been suggested in a discussion on this summary that ArbCom officially conclude the process. If you are satisfied that the process has come to a finality (until 2011 at least) could you get ArbCom "sign off" on its conclusion.

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I've commented out the section until you comment on it. The section can be seen in the link above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter[edit]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Sherlock Holmes movie terminology[edit]

So based on your logic on using an offensive term because it is used in the movie, in discussions of Huckleberry Finn, we should all be referring to Jim as a "ni****"? Because that is exactly what he is called in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.240.101 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series covers[edit]

Hi, Masem. The Resistance (series) article could really use a picture, I think. Perhaps using one picture would be appropriate? Could you point me to the page of the MoS that discusses this? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry[edit]

For this [15] I hope you don't take it the wrong way. --BozMo talk 23:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your queue idea[edit]

I saw your comment about the FAC queue and I like your version better than the one I put up. How about something like this as an additional option:

A marker is placed on the FAC page by the delegates which visually separates the list of candidates into "above the line" and "below the line". Reviewers are encouraged to review candidates below the line as higher priority than above the line. The FAC director and delegates can move the marker as they see fit.

That seems pretty simple and isn't subject to some of the objections given so far. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Xbox Live Arcade games[edit]

I have nominated List of Xbox Live Arcade games, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox Live Arcade games. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pcap ping 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Braid (video game)/archive3[edit]

I left some comments, suggestions, and questions. Sorry about doing it so late. It's a very interesting article and I don't think I'll have any qualms about supporting it, I just wanted to leave some minor suggestions first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February GA Sweeps update[edit]

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture[edit]

Hey man. Just wanted to let you know your Rapture article is looking really good so far. Keep up the good work! AlexHOUSE (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help, but in all honesty, I've not beaten BioShock and have probably spoiled myself enough so far. :p I'm buying it for the PS3 soon, so I may be able to help out at some point. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...[edit]

Are you calling me wordy? =) Long episode. =P -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: No worries. =) Most of it was mine. Funny thing is that I cut it back as I was writing it, so it was actually longer for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tar-s1-finish.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Tar-s1-finish.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for BTTF cleanups[edit]

Better late than never!

The Cleanup Barnstar
For your hard work on nicely cleaning up the plot sections of the three Back To The Future articles -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fontaine[edit]

I'm trying to write an article on Fontaine, but I'm having difficulty writing the plot summary of this character for an obvious reason; it's a pretty grey line. Halp? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction terms[edit]

I saw the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fan fiction terms (2nd nomination) and thought you might be able to save it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rv of blanking[edit]

Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail[edit]

Not sure what I did to start the fire at Monty, but it looks like Meat/Socks will have their way. I'll leave the page in your hands, as friendly communication is not the answer. 173.144.172.98 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a meat or a sock puppet. On behalf of my twenty-two thousand edits, kindly go fuck yourself. HalfShadow 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP, naturally, went back under his rock after his little spurt of activity. Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I could care less about that, but brushing me off as a 'puppet account is worse than an insult. HalfShadow 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as he admitted[16] in the 8th of his total of 11 edits under that IP, that he himself is a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Python[edit]

I told the IP it was in the movie, and he continued to demand that it needed a source. That's either trolling or total cluelessness, take your pick. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me: We know where "the chaste" appears in the film, obviously. Where does "the pure" appear in the film? It's totally unsourced, which further supports that the IP was trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, you pointed it out and I found it anyway. But saying he's Galahad the chaste is important in that one scene, because she comes back with "I'm Zoot ... just ... Zoot". Nothing chaste about Zoot, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template deletions[edit]

Hi. A user appears to be mass-deleting good links from articles, eg here, a link to game-credits and screenshots removed. I've left a note on his talkpage, and tracked down the original discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_76#MobyGames_paid_Wikipedia.3F, but don't have time today to go any further in investigating/preventing this damage. Any idea what to do? (I don't object to removing poor-links, of which there may be some mixed in, but blanket-deletions are more harm than help). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off plot summary needs an overhaul[edit]

Hey there, so I erred in my first attempt to try to fix it. What was wrong with my previous edit? Wouldn't you agree that the way the summary is written now takes some liberties with the plot?--The lorax (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series[edit]

I have nominated 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Completed![edit]

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010[edit]

WP:NOT redirect[edit]

'Kay, thanks for the detailed edit summary! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN[edit]

Can you review Shigeru Miyamoto. --Pedro J. the rookie 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reviewd[edit]

I reviewed Guitar Hero: Van Halen check it out. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Portal 2[edit]

If "holiday season" is common, are you also going to remove the link right after that to Microsoft Windows? How about video game or morse code? Rhetorical, I don't care what your answer is. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Al[edit]

I undid your revision of the songs I added to Weird Al's noncommercially released list-- they appear at the very bottom of the list on the official site and that same link is used to verify almost every other song on that list so why not those? http://www.weirdal.com/setlists.htm "or these unrecorded or unreleased "concert-only" songs: A Matter Of Crust (A Matter of Trust) - in Food Medley, Albuquerque - special "fake" version, Beverly Hillbillies/Miss You, China Grove, Close To You, Hot Beets (Heartbeat) - in Food Medley, Inna Gadda Da Vida, It's A Gas, Last Train To Clarksville, Love Me Two Times, More Than A Filling (More Than A Feeling) - in a medley, Orgy On My Own, Purple Haze, Radio Radio, Rio Rancho, Rocky Road Hoochie Koo, School's Out, Smoke On The Water, Sweet Home Alabama, Sweet Home Albuquerque, We Won't Eat Another Hero (We Don't Need Another Hero) - in Food Medley Whole Lotta Love, Wipeout, You Light Up My Life (punk version)"Lisa mynx (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for This Too Shall Pass (song)[edit]

Updated DYK query On March 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article This Too Shall Pass (song), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_6&oldid=1166521983"