Jump to content

User talk:Masem/Archive 14

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

Robin Williams

[edit]

The quick archiving is apparently intended to increase the hegemony in that article. At least it has that effect. A couple of the regulars act like the own it, and can inflict their decisions Ipse dixit before anyone gets a word in edgewise. Its a case of 'fast justice,' as contrasted with a "Speedy trial". Then it disappears quickly into the memory hole that is an archive. I've seen it in practice. So dialing back the archive time would help make the article better — let consensus develop. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITN sections

[edit]

Hi Masem,

I liked your ideas on talk:ITN about setting up sections. In general I think people don't realise how good Wikipedia can be as a source of info on recent events, and I wish more of the front page was devoted to this.

Best, EdSaperia (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

[edit]

Hello

[edit]

I was hoping some consensus could be reached to edit an existing guideline such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization. I have been trying to say that all these guidelines are about how to establish articles and whether something should be on their own page or that inclusion requires sources otherwise names are considered private. but in the event of extreme victimiztion, even of world wide proportions, it is obvious that there is suppression that takes place, and I believe this section alone could warrant a conversation on how "a victim of a crime should not be further victimized or have their life risked by misconstruing information widely decimated in the public domain as grounds for inclusion in the encyclopedia."MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monsooons

[edit]

Since im on my mobile i can not edit ITN/C to answer your question. My view is a flooding article for the specific events and the overall season could be warrented/good to have. However, i am hesitant in calling the events of recent days rare.Jason Rees (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You edited a protected page without consensus

[edit]

Masem, I must ask that you self-revert your edit to GamerGate. There is no significant agreement, let alone consensus, that the Paste opinion should be moved out of where it was, much less removed entirely from the article. It is an indisputable reliable source and merely having an opinion does not render it unusable. Indeed, virtually all of the sources on this issue have opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. I understand where you're coming from and I think we can work something out, but removing it entirely from the article right now strikes me very much the wrong way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely lost, it's still in the edit history, and linked on talk page, but it is not a good neutral source to discuss the problem. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when editing this article, not to give the impression of impropriety. It seems you may be WP:INVOLVED, so it is probably better to avoid all edits when the article is protected. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been addressing the immediate BLP concerns, after reverting the above --MASEM (t) 13:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback?

[edit]

Masem, is it worth it to apply for rollback? I use Twinkle heavily already. While I understand the technical differences between the two, the functional difference is nearly moot in most cases. I've started expanding my editing and am now active in patrolling pending changes and edit requests. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to implement things faster. You just need to be careful and if you make a mistake just be reasonably quick to undo, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Man's Sky

[edit]
Thanks for digging up a source for the release date on the No Man's Sky article! m-p{3} (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question for you

[edit]

Hi Masem, so I have a question for you since you are an admin. I made an account just a couple days ago to comment on the GamerGate topic, since it seemed like the view point was incredibly skewed. Well, I now have two people I think basically mocking me here. I don't know exactly what to do about this, can you give me some advice since youve been here a while? Thank you. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, us experience editors see actions that you have done before as a common process done by a POV-pushing sock/meat puppet editor would do, so it's easy to mistake someone that (in your case I hope) taken steps to familiarize themselves with WP with sockpuppets. I've tried to add a note that they are being too judgemental at this time without other evidence or reason to take action, as we are supposed to assume good faith. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see, I didn't know that was the problem. Just that happening all of a sudden and being called a misogynist, sock puppet, and meat puppet (which I now kinda know what it is), was kinda... alarming? Thank you for taking the time to comment though, I just really had no idea what to do at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability for illustrations

[edit]

Thanks for commenting on the above. You suggested having clearer site-wide policy - do you have an corresponding amendment in mind? Would you like to collaborate on one? Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 17:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the immediate time, as I'd like to see where the argument goes to know what lines might need to be drawn. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GamerGate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate/Depression quest

[edit]

IMHO, while it's an possible aveneu to name Depression Quest in the text, too much expanding upon it is just unnecessary - best left to an possible Depression Quest page itself, and link to it. Although I'm not entirely sure IF it has a page and will ever have one. MicBenSte (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's necessary: it explains who Quinn is and why she is the subject of harassment. It also through the user criticism of the game introduces other issues that have come in GG, like "message" video games, etc. Depression Quest does have its own article, and the details of the video game go there for sure, but in context of explaining why her ex's accusations sparked this, it's necessary to summarize just enough. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your stance that Depression Quest is why these things came to light. I think it was really the fact she had a relationship with a journalist and the resulting reddit censorship that really kicked things into high gear, and DQ had nothing to do with it.EvilConker (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Quinn was an unknown developer that there was such accusations, it likely would have not sparked from that. But before the accusations, Quinn was already a target of harassment from some, and with the ex'es accusations, they jumped on that more. It is critical to the situation. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate

[edit]

Hey man nice work on the background, really clarifies the story leading up to it, I'm discussing this since you seem kinda neutral on the subject and I apreciate that. One thing I disagree with your last edit is just the leading thing, as I understand it, it should give a fast summarized look into the matter without going into details. As it is now the causes are not clear enough since it states "allegations around game developer Zoe Quinn" but doesn't specify or mentions the origin at all, my lead was

GamerGate refers to a 2014 video game controversy that arose after a former boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn, posted details on her personal relationships with individuals involved in the video game industry. The controversy eventually led to discussions on journalistic ethics of video game journalism, between journalists and developer, as well as misogyny and harassment in the gamer community.

It doesn't go into the specific "details on her relationships" and neither specifies what the "discussions on journalistic ethics" and misogyny are, that's what the rest of the article is, let me know what you think. Loganmac (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gjoni

[edit]

It's not anywhere in a reliable source that we can cite, but Gjoni stated on his blog that he has no evidence or reason to believe the relationship between Grayson and Quinn began before April. There's been no challenge to that statement and no reliable source, so far as I have seen, disputes that the coverage took place before the relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at GamerGate

[edit]

You are doing a great deal of reverting on GamerGate: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], and that's not including partial reverts. This seems like quite a lot considering the article has been unprotected for just over 24 hours. Please remember the WP:3RR and that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are BLP issues (poor sourcing, biased language, etc.) which are exempt from 3RR as to maintain BLP policy. But I am making sure on other parts to take them to the talk page. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how they are BLP violations? Which BLP subjects are being potentially defamed in those reverts? Not every edit that you think is 'bad' is a BLP violation simply by virtue of being in an article where BLP has been applied. In those edits I see you removing negative information about non-specific individuals, removing positive information about specific individuals, and 're-adding negative information about specific individuals. If you intend to continue to revert well past the 3RR under the guise of 'BLP violations' I suggest you get in the habit of explaining how they are violations in the edit summary. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you insisting on reverting the edits that reframe the issue as something it's not? I think it's clear that the criticism is about journalistic integrity. The response has been to focus on the misogyny.

However, remember, this is about the hashtag and the controversy that it represents, and I think the controversy is definitely about journalistic integrity and 'clique-ish-ness.'

I'd love to talk to you live so we can iron out our issues, my email is chosencharacter@gmail.com, contact me and we can talk because though I trust you're trying to do the best to keep this neutral, framing the article in this way is innately not-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilConker (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, see the volumes of discussion on the talk page - the reliable sources are framing this as misogynmy, with some attempt to bring out the other arguments about this. Unfortunately, that's how we have to use the reliable sources, and we cannot twist that around. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Robin Williams talk page

[edit]

You are likely to want to see the following: [9]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FUR-processing in image templates?

[edit]

Hello Masem, as you are very experienced with all things related to fair-use: do you know some of the background of template:non-free logo (and similar templates) and why checking those images is limited to patrollers and admins (quote: "To patrollers and administrators: If this image ...")? A bit of research indicates, that this restriction was never properly discussed. However the relevant talkpage with more info seems to have been deleted. To be clear, i am not trying to stir up trouble, but would like to understand the process and its background. GermanJoe (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that language is meant to be applied only to patrollers and admins, but as extra advice that as they are scanning through such images to do that step if appropriate. Any other user should be able to do that too, though we would like to make sure they are familiar with NFC and the reasons for that so that they aren't doing that blindly. Can you point me to where you think the discussions might have been? I can see if there's anything there and if there was a different meaning to that. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link to a user talkpage, which probably pointed to the relevant discussion, is at the end of Template_talk:Non-free_video_game_cover#Edit_request_on_17_December_2012 (all FUR-templates apparently were changed) with some, but not much, context given (and i would agree with your interpretation, however the current template text is a bit misleading then). Thanks for your advice. GermanJoe (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that was just archvied (if you look at the top of the page, the View History is available for all pages on WP so you'd have to search that), but the relevent point is here [10] (the last section) before that was archived away. The edits in question appear similar to this [11] which I don't think is related to what you are asking about (in the patrollers/admin line)
[12] this was the edit where that language was added, which stems from discussion here [13] (first section). As such I don't think that language has ever been "checked" - its not wrong, but yes, it does seem to discourage non admin/patrollers from doing that. But it doesn't outlaw the same from making the change. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional research, Masem. I'll continue to check such cases as thorough as possible, hoping i won't get banned over it (just kidding, i think). GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, but if you do find yourself being cautioned or warned for such edits, I would help you seek better language for that. It's meant as a reminder for those that are looking through, like dotting an 'i', as opposed to "don't sign below this line" type warning. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah nah Gamergate article is ruined

[edit]

Thanks, I quit for any newcomer gamergate was just gamers getting bored and harassing Zoe Quinn for no reason Loganmac (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perry photo

[edit]

Its amazing how far down the rabbit hole we are on this debate. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

[edit]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:GamerGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Retartist (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"More Quinn quotes is a bias"

[edit]

Are you kidding? We have more quotes from the TFYC sideshow than we do from Quinn until now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find it

[edit]

Really?, we should all search for what you're referencing in the history, it's clear there? That's the standard? I think you know better than that, if not then read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, it pretty much well describes how to communicate with others so they understand what you're referencing. And you can always come to me with questions... :) Dreadstar ☥ 04:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


TRPOD/GamerGate

[edit]

Hey Masem, Just wanted to say, TRPOD seems to be trying to trim conversations his way right now, and is taking a very lucrative amount of power to close some discussions that shouldn't. He has already posted a long paragraph about his POV on the subject, saying it is "Playing right into their narrative" to change anything in the article. He has also been trying to silence people, multiple times, by telling certain people that if they keep talking about a subject, they would be topic banned (such as saying he has a POV). I was trying to keep my mouth shut on some people since I don't have much pull, but he seems to be really abusing some things and doing very little for discussion. Is there something that can be done about this? PseudoSomething (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am getting very annoyed at TRPOD/Tarc/Ryu because of their continued quest to try to shut down discussion, and since I got ANI'ed already, I am about to do that to them, even though I am new. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you are using a battleground-type approach to these discussions - nowhere near where it is bad or meriting an ANI (nor are their responses) but it does not help for healthy discussion. You have good and valid points, I'm not ignoring them and certainly hope we can move towards something like this if the sourcing works out, but they are probably reacting that way because you are approaching it with a negative attitude. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I wouldn't be saying something extreme like that if there wasn't some backing behind it. Ryu has already told me to explicitly shut up and multiple times told me my discussions don't matter, Tarc has called me a sockpuppet on multiple occasions, and now basically called me a loony, and TRPOD is honestly actively trying to shut down discussion. Does none of that matter? PseudoSomething (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamergate controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Escapist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Your new friend has made all of one edit to article space. Their other contributions (deleted and otherwise) were almost entirely in support of an OR draft of theirs (see especially their comments in the so-called "kangaroo court" that deleted it). I think it was Gil Grissom in CSI who said "the way people do one thing is the way they do everything." postdlf (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and reading through the MFD for that I can see where their thinking lines up. Just not thrilled that they are questioning my intentions there. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am questioning your intentions. I would prefer that you would question your own intentions. It's clear that I am not the only one in favor of change. It's also clear that you have feelings of ownership over the article in question, which is fine as long as you moderate them, which seems to be an issue. As for my past history, after I discovered the fact that notability in Wikipedia is a bastardized term, inappropriately used, I asked for the article to be deleted. Since I learned what the Notability standards actually meant within Wikipedia, I stopped trying to create an article which is notable by English standards, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. Instead, I have concentrated on publishing in a journal with prestige and weight in the scientific community. This is an ongoing process of many months duration. Once there are several articles discussing the new concept, in reputable sources, I will revisit the article if someone else doesn't do it first. Matthewhburch (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not assuming good faith and nearly making personal attacks. I don't own WP:N, but I'm well aware of YEARS of issues around the page and the term. The reasons that people are suggesting for changes are ignoring lots of lessons learned in terms of why we call it notability and what it means. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people have been making complaints for years, many of them extremely well thought out with a significant degree of support (like the one I branched off from) should be a clear indication that there is room for improvement. Other people can disagree with you and still be right, you know. Matthewhburch (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And at the same time, changes to WP:N are often perennial proposals that do not gain traction because while it is not perfect, it works by achieving a balance. You notice there's just as many if not more voices that recommend not changing it too. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Wikipedia talk:Notability". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

[edit]

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning Wikipedia talk:Notability, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2014

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2014, the project has:

Content

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Game of Thrones TT game

[edit]

I'm a bit confused as to why you reverted that, I only added links to the already stated topics. KarstenO (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I've reverted myself, though at the time I don't have time go back and check but I'm pretty sure they've said they're working off the TV series, but until I can go and check its fine to leave the books in. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate Controversy

[edit]

Although the POV has been discussed at length, no consensus has been developed. Active debate still continues on the talk page, and I just provided links to several RSs that are more neutral than those in the article. There is a continued POV dispute, and I would ask you to replace the tag. Skrelk (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYT

[edit]

The section above does not specifically reference Alexander's work, and we publish two anonymous, direct alleged criticisms of the work - that it was "offensive" and "racist" - without providing any other description or once mentioning its thrust was sexism in the gamer community. I can't believe you would find it inappropriate to mention an impeccably-sourced description of the work's argument that goes to the heart of the controversy. I have restored it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you are pulling is "Gamasutra is one of several game sites that published essays and articles that have been critical of gamer culture and rampant sexism in it." This describes all of the "death of gamer" articles, not just Alexander's piece, which is documented in the para previously. The current para then says "this is how gamers responded to that", so adding the NYTimes bit is diluting that factor and unbalancing the article. Maybe in the previous para that can be added? --MASEM (t) 17:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mlp eqg rainbow rocks theatrical poster.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intel statement is clear

[edit]

"For the time being, Intel has decided not to continue with our current ad campaign on the gaming site Gamasutra."

That is a direct quote from the company's release, and two reliable sources have commented on that fact. If and when that changes, we can note that as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, that is definitely there, so the engadget quote is at least not a major problem (Still not sure of the need to include, but that's for discussion). --MASEM (t) 02:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streissand effect phrase on the lead

[edit]

You think it would be OK to add this to the lead, it seems the reason the whole thing blew over is because of blocking of the discussion.

"On some websites like 4chan and reddit, posts relating to the controversy were blocked or deleted, which columnist Erik Kain said led to a Streisand Effect"

I know it's repeated below but it'd fine for people to know why it gathered attention to begin with Loganmac (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's too much of a detail for the lead at this point. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
for patiently maintaining Talk:Gamergate controversy and its respective article. Glad to see such a knowledgeable editor packing rationale and wikilinks whenever I have the misfortune of ending up on that talk page. czar ♔ 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

I just wanted to show my appreciation of your Gamergate article handling by dropping a line here on your talk page. I noticed you have this kind of tendency to *not* resort to emotional language (insults, stating your own opinion when it's not really relevant to the discussion at hand, comments about the behavior of other editors, generalizations, etc), sometimes I can't help but think of you as a robot because of that, and I'm saying this as a compliment! Greetings from Austria, please keep up the awesome work you're doing. 188.23.199.65 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Hunt

[edit]

Due to the dog's exposure in Smash, I think it might be valuable to revisit the idea of having the Duck Hunt Dog as a separate article from Duck Hunt, now that it is no longer only notable for that game. I feel that once the Duck Hunt article expands, it won't need the amount of reception that the Duck Hunt Dog has, and right now it makes it have some level of undue weight. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I'd see what happens once SSB for Wii U is out to see about reviews there. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I can probably find enough to do in the mean time. Maybe an Isabelle article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
Hereby awarded for 1 month (and counting) of being WP:VG's flame-resistant voice of reason at Gamergate controversy. You got your hands dirty where many of the rest of us backed away in disgust. I guess that's why you're the one with the mop and the rubber gloves. -Thibbs (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I've been incubating an idea the last few days about how to turn this mess into an article for the WP:VG Newsletter. It seems like your experiences observing, interacting with, and talking to passionate new editors while championing Wikipedia's core rules like NPOV and BLP might be really helpful and quite interesting for others in the project who haven't been closely following the issue to read over. The Newsletter has used the postmortem format to examine incidents like the promotion of Final Fantasy to FA in the past and I think that would be a good way to handle a story on the gamergate issue. Obviously we'd still have to see the activity die down a little before it could accurately be called a portmortem. Anyway think it over and let me know if something like this would interest you. -Thibbs (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversions of my edits to Portal 2 and Portal

[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you've reverted my edits to Portal 2 and Portal, stating that consensus is necessary before the changes I made should be put into effect. Please, allow me to explain my intentions.

Firstly, I would like to state that as the games are developed by Valve, an American company, the month–day–year format is usually preferable for the articles in question—unless, of course, a given style had been accepted previously. I have no doubt that you already knew that, though. Normally, I'd agree with you that changes in date formats should not be made without first seeking consensus; however, I don't believe this applies to Portal 2, as the article already contained the {{Use mdy dates}} template. Specifically, as the template had been put in place in January 2013, there should not be any problem with updating the article such that it still reflects the date format upon which was previously agreed.

I've just seen that you've reverted my edits to Portal, as well. As the aforementioned template did not already exist there, I understand your reversion of my edit, and accept it. You are correct that I should have sought consensus prior to editing this article in such a matter, and I regret my hasty edit. I wrongly assumed that since the mm-dd-yyyy format had been established for Portal 2, the same was true for Portal, without stopping to check whether that was actually the case. Again, my apologies.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

—zziccardi (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you?

[edit]

Masem, where you've been? --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 06:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mandatory Fun

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mandatory Fun you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The lad searches the night for his newts -- The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

[edit]

No Man's Sky

[edit]

I think you need to really look over where the 2015 release date originated. Hello Games has said nothing regarding a release plan. The date has been "made up" by the gaming press, with no proof to back it up, other than that 2015 comes after 2014. The only real proof is proof that it WONT be out next year, right from Hello Games own job offers. A job offer for an artist and one for a programmer, both expected to last "a year or so". That right there would make 2015 impossible. TBD would be the most honest answer. Just because the gaming press puts a date on the Internet does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not 2014 (talk • contribs)

unfortunately, we cannot presume from the career listings about a release date (That's original research), and we put more value on what journalists say, even if in reality they pulled that number from nowhere. --20:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note

[edit]

Hello Masem, thank you for your very kind note (regarding my contributions to Grim Fandango). It means a lot coming from you. I have seen how you have been an active and responsible contributor in keeping up the quality of the article. I appreciate you taking the time to send this message. Indeed, it is exciting to hear that a remastered version is in the works, by no other than Tim Schafer. There is talk that they will be releasing much more information on "the making of" the original game, and I look forward to having the article expanded and enriched by that new info when it comes out, as well as all the new reactions by the press. In the meantime, I am trying to make any enhancements possible to reflect the quality of the game, and yes, prepare for the new release. Thank you. [I posted that message here as well as in my talk page, bc I didn't know where it would be easier for you to see it. Sorry for the redundancy] (talk) user:Al83tito 00:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banning/Suspending editors from articles

[edit]

Hi, Masem. Where do I go to get people removed from participating in articles? I've looked around, and I still can't figure it out. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it requires admin action/discussion WP:AN or WP:ANI, however, you need to have a rather strong case that their behavior is disruptive enough to require a topic ban. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had a chance to get rid of them, Masem. All you did was sit back and let them drive all the reasonable people away. Good luck with that group. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have done nothing that can be enforceable in their specific actions. Perhaps they are rude, they give new editors the cold shoulder, but they haven't done anything that would require blocking or banning and it would be just as bad to charge them with that without any strong evidence of wrongdoing. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Behavior

[edit]

Your attempts at vandalizing pages and removing relevant historical facts has been noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssh83 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Your take on whether File:Axiom esports logo.jpg is pd-ineligible? czar ♔ 04:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the shadow effects are too much and make this original, surpassing the threshold of originality and will be non-free. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought—thanks. Listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 October 15 czar ♔ 04:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCR#File:New Nintendo 3DS (white).jpg

[edit]

When closing a section, remember to substitute the {{subst:archive top}} template as the archiving bot is buggy. Without substitution, the archiving bot hides the rationale in the archive. You don't need to substitute the {{archive bottom}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowiki

[edit]

You forgot to close the tag so now your signature wasn't saved. Also it's Utah State, not Arizona State.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please spellcheck for Sarkeesian.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions regarding the NFC status of File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg at WP:NFCR#File:Icelandic police star (logo).jpg. I have a related question which involves other images being used at Icelandic Police#Ranks. All of these insignia images have been uploaded using this license. The source of all of these images is given as this website, but that site's copyright link claims that this site to be the actual source and the actual copyright holder. "Uniforminsignia.org" says it has licensed the images per CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. So, my question is shouldn't the source and author/copyright holder of these insignia's be listed as "Uniformsinsignia.org" since they seem to be where the images actually come from? Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that the uniforninsignia site is only saying that their own content is CC-BY-NC-NC (they cannot claim copyright on copyrighted insignia), and so I don't think they are the copyright holder; unless evidence shows otherwise, we should assume such are copyrighted by the entity represented. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Masem. Does "entity represented" in this case mean "Icelandic Police"? When the license says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.", does the mean the "Icelandic Police" should be attributed somewhere on the file's wikipage? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Yes, because it is the logo of the Icelandic police, I would expect that they hold the copyright on the logo. It is very unlikely that the uniforminsignia has gotten copyright of that logo, and are only using it in a fair use manner; that Creative Commons statement cannot reasonable be true. I would definitely make sure that the Icelandic Police are named as the copyright owner for that file. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Masem. How is something like that done? I can post a message on the uploader's page, but I am not sure how helpful that would be. The uploader of this file was apparently unhappy that it was even being discussed here at WP:PUF. Their response was to make some "creative" edits to both my user and talk pages. If for some reason, these are also seen to be improperly licensed and are NFC like "Icelandic police star (log)", then they would need a source to satisfy "non-free logo", right? None of those rank images are listed on either the he source page for "Iceland police star (logo)" or the pdf file the page links to. So, if no source can be found, then the images cannot be used, correct? I guess since the files have been uploaded to Wikicommons, then clarification could be requested at The Village Pump, but not sure if something should be tried before taking it there. Commons does not allow NFC images to be uploaded; therefore, if they determined to not be PD and are also using the wrong license, then they will probably be deleted, right? This might not be well received by the uploader, since it would mean that they will all have to be removed from the "Icelandic Police" article. Is this something worth pursuing further in your opinion? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: We don't need an exact source page but the obvious source that the image was published before. And I did find a gov't provided doc here [14] that demonstrates that and have added it to the rationale. Everything else about it is acceptable for NFCC. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my previous post was confusing. I wasn't referring the source for "Icelandic police star (logo); I was referring to the source(s) for the images used in Icelandic Police#Ranks. "Ranks" on page 54 and "Ranks and insignia of the Icelandic Police" on page 55 of the pdf you found does give some names/images, but would this be sufficient for the licensing. Moreover, the images used in the article and the images on the pdf do not appear to be one and the same, at least not to me. By the way, On page 28 of that pdf, "The Icelandic Police Star" gives a good description of the image, something which might be worth adding to the article, so I will post that suggestion on the article's talk page. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even if the images didn't originate digitally from that document, it is clearly an official document that makes it clear thos are the the insignia for the ranks, so would be fine as a source document (if you don't have direct sourcing anyway). It would identify the Icelandic police as the copyright owners as well. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine Masem, but I'm not sure if the all images used in the article are exactly the same as the ones given in that pdf. For example, File:Iceland-police-1997-with-id-number-5.gif, File:Iceland-police-1997-with-id-number-4.gif, File:Iceland-police-1997-with-id-number-3.gif, File:Iceland-police-1997-with-id-number-2.gif do not appear to be exactly the same as the pdf because the ones on the pdf do not have numbers. Finally, if all of that is irrelevant and the pdf is acceptable as a valid source for all of the images, then how should the licensing be fixed. Would these be considered NFC "non-free logos" like the "police star logo"? These images were uploaded to Commons which doesn't allows NFC. Can the licensing on Commons simply be fixed by editing each file's description page like can be done for files uploaded to Wikipedia? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this gets a bit difficult. First, sourcing wise, that source is still acceptable to show "previous publication", and identify the copyright owner.
That said, those patches approach what we call the threshold of originality as the designs are relatively simple. Now the problem is that what is the threshold varies from country to country. The US has a "high" threshold, meaning that there needs to be great creativity to be able to copyright something, and those patches would not. On the other hand, Icelandic law appears to be based on Germany law, and German's law is a bit lower in threshold , but I would estimate they still work there (based on looking at other cases in common law). So those images should be tagged with the Commons template "PD-ineligible" to show that they fail that. However, I would suggest that you might want to pass that question to the Commons village pumps just to make sure. If they cannot host them there, we can host them here on en.wiki using the tag PD-USonly ( eg making it clear it doesn't apply to all countries). I do believe there is concern with the tag that the person claims them as their own work. They may have recreated the badges based on official documentation, but that should be indiciated instead of claiming ownership. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Masem. I will ask at the Village Pump for clarification regarding Commons. Thanks again for taking the time to answer all of my questions. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I do mean to ask at the Commons versions of the village pump, as they are much better set to access this type of situation. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was the VP I was referring to above. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for informing me about my mistakes at In The News candidates NickGibson3900 Talk 04:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickGibson3900: Wasn't trying to wreck your nomination, I just noticed that issue when I was checking some links, and didn't know if it was legit or not. Thanks for understanding. :) --MASEM (t) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

[edit]

Sorry if I've given you grief over the GG topic. You're a bit like Jimbo (whether that's a compliment or a slur seems to be in the eye of the beholder these days) in that you always try to seek the middle ground and find compromise, and I get a little tetchy with that when it seems that a point-of-view that seems a bit fringe-ish is given more of a share at the table than my personal opinion feels it should. You've done good in shepherding the conversations along, overall. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You from the Monkeys

[edit]

Thank you for explaining how an alternate title can be resolved. I (think) I'm starting to understand how that might look. I'm still searching for any meaningful discussion about the correct title though. Unless I'm missing something (which is perfectly possible), the article has already see-sawed back and forth on a sort of assertive 'yes it is, no it isn't' basis with little evidence one way or the other. Hopefully, someone will respond with something concrete. Thanks again, I appreciate your patient help. Mandrake079 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandrake079: Yes, I am not saying anything yet towards whether it should be "Twelve" or "12" but that once that's settled, we can resolve all the issues to make sure the alternate title is given. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TabletPC 2004.png

[edit]

Hi.

I was thinking perhaps File:TabletPC 2004.png needs cropping; i.e. per WP:NFCC#3, it must not include Windows Taskbar, Internet Explorer and Google Toolbar because all this is needed is Tablet Input Panel.

Cropping works better with a higher resolution image. Would you please check the hidden revisions for such an image?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been one but that was deleted a while ago and no longer appears in the logs. But I agree that only the tablet input area is needed.--MASEM (t) 14:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er... was I incorrect to assume that admins, such as yourself, can inspect (or even restore) such deleted revisions? That's why I wrote to you after all.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: My understanding of how MediaWiki works is that deleted files may stay around in the database but there's way that the media software can purge those automatically (same way that deleted articles are not necessarily deleted but cannot be assured to stay in the database as more time psses). I have tried using admin tools to look for old copies and I am just not finding anything. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 22 Parliament Hill shootings

[edit]

Dude, quick on the trigger! I was about to post a nomination at WP:ITN/C but you beat me to it. Mind helping me keep 2014 Canadian Parliament Hill attack updated? --Natural RX 15:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scribblenauts

[edit]

There's a bit of a drive at WPVG to nominate GAN- and FAC-ready articles in the B and A pools. I noticed that Scribblenauts is a very high quality page, mostly thanks to your work. It would probably pass GAN without incident. Do you care to nominate it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll go ahead and GAN it.I've only got one other GAN in the works (not VG related) and still trying to work on BioShock and flooded on Gamergate stuff but shoudl be able to handle it otherwise. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television Amazing Race

[edit]

Do you think there's some way we can incorporate language parameters into this? There's a new Chinese edition out and it might also be helpful for the versions that were broadcast languages don't use the Latin alphabet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a way but I'm not very familiar with multi-language templates. Do you know what fields would need to be adjusted for this? --MASEM (t) 04:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we only really need to add a new parameter for the other language name itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, like "language=" and only shown if filed in? Yeah, that's doable. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, language= and native_name= plus a parameter necessary for the text encoding for accessibility.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, "language=" is there for the full language name, "native_name=" for the show's native name and "language_code=" which used the two letter code that works with the {{lang}} template. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be a way to take care of two things at once but the three parameters is probably all we can do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked but can't find any immediate templates that that the language code and spit out the language name (Which would be the common sense way). --MASEM (t) 05:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does it through {{lang-ISOCODEGOESHERE}}. Like Chinese: Chinese or Ukrainian: Ukranian.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate / Felicia Day

[edit]

I have no intention in getting involved in this article or the subject... But this came across my browser today and I thought to post it to you in case it's of any note: Felicia Day doxxed after commenting on GamerGate privacy concerns -- ferret (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it since last night, but want to present that from a high quality source so there's no dispute on that. Thanks. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on trying to rebuild the GamerGate article into something less messy and generally better

[edit]

Here's the page I'd appreciate your input greatly constructive criticism would be welcome Halfhat (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaciemonster/gamergate[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning GamerGate (controversy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Stinks this didn't happen, glad we agreed on something. Hard to have a conversation on the GGC talk with all the constant archiving. In response to Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_9#Ingrained_compromise I think pre-existing is a wonderful idea. I certainly don't think prior to GamerGate that there wasn't a single gamer who hated a woman, since inevitably every major social group will have someone holding an attitude like that. Although it isn't really necessary to say it's pre-existing (I can't think what foolishness would lead a reader to think that gaming was uniquely pure prior to 2012) it also doesn't cause any harm to say it since it does not convey anything misleading about quantity or impact. Also a breath of fresh air to read other sensible-sounding editors like Protonk and Andyvphil. I intentionally omit a final responder. Ranze (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

[edit]
[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

[edit]

FYI, a move of 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa has been formally requested. I'd invite you to submit your comments. --Natural RX 17:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination of "I Won't Let You Down (OK Go song)"

[edit]

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 237. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

#PatienceGate

[edit]

AnyyVen (talk) has given you a large glass of milk, for assisting with a very messy article. Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

For having absolutely inhuman patience and etiquette, a cool head, and several other superhuman implements.

Spread the lovely, cool, refreshing goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Glass of milk}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to say...

[edit]

Don't know how else to leave you a message, but dude: bless you and your patience. Don't know how you do it, much respect (oh, and welcome to "our" world). Feel free to delete this when you see it. Peace.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gamergate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gamergate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Gamergate arbcom

[edit]

I have entered a statement as a non-party over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gamergate. I hope that was OK. I must say, I very much agree with your position as a common sense one in light of Wikipedia's overall principle of NPOV, and I can't believe several editors are so stuck in opposition to it.

There seems to me two issues at work, both of which have bearing on NPOV. 1) The use of sources that are overwhelmingly negative toward the pro-Gamergate movement, and that the article will often reflect that version of events. Given Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and the "undue weight" caveat concerning neutrality, this is unavoidable given the overwhelming mainstream media bias against pro-Gamergate. It's one of the more overwhelming examples of media bias I've seen in some time, in my estimation, but it is what it is. 2) The overall tone of the article and use of language - this seems to be the crux of the controversy. It seems clear to me that one can source from strongly anti-GG media sources and still keep a respectful, neutral tone, and that just because the language of a source is condemnatory, the language of the article need not reflect that. This seems to be the sticking point, because the editors that are pushing the current version of the article seem to think that NPOV = mainstream POV, and that when it comes to pushing a mainstream point of view, it should be no holds barred. They seem to see 2 as self-evidently emerging from 1, and I don't think that follows at all.

Anyway, we'll see how this turns out. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate

[edit]

Hi Masem. I greatly sympathize with the your work over at GamerGate and commend you for your efforts. Unfortunately, I don't see much hope for the article because the anti-GG editors seem so stubborn. I just tried to edit the lead, do you think it's better? starship.paint ~ regal 09:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny RfC change

[edit]

I made this change to your words. Technically a WP:TPO violation, but I was having real difficulty understanding the sentence before. I hope you don't mind. Feel free to revert or further clarify if I've distorted your meaning. -Thibbs (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Offsite Discussion

[edit]

Hello purple palm tree man :D. I would like to discuss with you a matter over the IRseas on freenode. I fear my detractors would call the internet police on me if i talked here for now. Pls respond soon. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC) (if u would liek sum bubl gum, or for me to talk normally, just ask)[reply]

Alright maybe that last post was a bit too lolrandum. I want to talk to you over IRC (preferrably soon, and on freenode). --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 05:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need Assistance

[edit]

Hey Masem. So on the current topic of BLP issues on that BZ article, I decided to message the mods of KiA to let them know what was happening (It is their sex life, FFS). I asked them how they felt about the situation, and it turns out, TheHat2 was doxxed in the mass Kotaku dox that happened, and he is mentioned in that BZ article. I think this kinda bumps it up from just an online Pseudonym, correct? PseudoSomething (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bring that up the WT:BLP or WP:BLP/N discussions as a point towards avoiding the source, but I can't say for sure since I'm not 100% sure how it will be considered. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

[edit]


Edit warring

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Gamergate controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Edit warring violates Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate, if continued, you risk general sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have some cookies :D

[edit]
Cookies!

DungeonSiegeAddict510 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For having the patience of a saint. --Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 18:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 3

[edit]

Gsfelipe94 keeps reverting me because I changed "Leg 7 (Morocco → Germany → Austria → Germany)" to "Leg 7 (Morocco → Germany & Austria)", after he was snarky and incivil in the TAR25 "UK --> Denmark --> Sweden --> Denmark" debate. Could you weigh in?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you beleve this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go back to other edits to see who really is "snarky" and "incivil". Remember the dispute about leg 1 of TAR 24? Even though we agreed on the subject, the attitude was waaay different. You know that. So when you accuse me of personal attack because I mention "keep it as Ryulong likes", I can definitely say the same when you accuse me of "hating you" and therefore doing everything that I can to mess with you. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television Amazing Race

[edit]

I think we should update this to use {{Infobox}}, but I'm not 100% sure how.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I completely forgot I messaged you about this a couple weeks ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

[edit]

Hi. You have been mentioned at ANI in section Long-term copyright concerns: User:Light show. Your participation would be very welcome there. Please note that with current archive practices it will archive after 36 hours of inactivity. After its archival, the conversation will be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861 or later. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I too quickly made the experience that GamerGate shouldn't event be touched with a 10 foot pole. I hope the article will fix itself overtime through hindsight. Avono♂ (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request(Gamergate) declined

[edit]

An arbitration case request(Gamergate), involving you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating multiple images for deletion?

[edit]

Hello Masem, is there a good way to nominate a batch of images (all 9 remaining uploads from User:Stanekzai11) for a summary check and deletion in one step? I have checked WP:PUF, but this page just describes a single-file approach. The uploads are from 2007 and all share the same disregard for sourcing and copyright - I don't feel like checking and filing a dozen notifications for that one. GermanJoe (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can handle that at NFCR if you are nominating them all for the same reason even if they span different pages. You're right that I don't think FFD/PUF is set up to handle that. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(should have been clearer) Most of them (probably all) are not in use currently. Still OK to go for NFCR? GermanJoe (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if they are not in use you can tag them with WP:CSD#F5 for orphaned non-free, and an admin will deal with them later. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have followed your suggestion and nominated all (only 8 actually) images for F5. Looks a bit weird, as fair-use was never been claimed, but might be the quickest way to get rid of them. Thank you for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten to lighten the mood!

[edit]

I (and many other supporters of #GamerGate) really appreciate your professional stance regarding #GamerGate.

Keep up your great work and have a nice day :-)

Racuce (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor things to address at GA Review

[edit]

Hi there, Masem, I hope you're doing well. :)

I've left some minor notes for you to address at Talk:Mandatory Fun/GA2.

Then I'll get on to next stage of review.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please just fix that one bare link ref 38. Strongly recommend archiving all links with archivedate= and archiveurl= and otherwise great job! :) — Cirt (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more Amazing Race bullshit

[edit]

70.26.222.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is disrupting everything because I'm updating articles to use {{multiple images}} and using vertical rather than horizontal layouts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milo

[edit]

They are taking it out of context. Some group drama occurred, he isn't taking his support away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.4.171.48 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mandatory Fun

[edit]

The article Mandatory Fun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mandatory Fun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

Sorry for making the edit at [15], I really didn't know I had done it. I can only attribute it to using an iPad with HotCat installed - too easy to press buttons. Thanks for reverting. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 21:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcsprinter123: No worries, that happens too many times to me on a small tablet screen unintentionally :) --MASEM (t) 22:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

[edit]

Asking for Advice

[edit]

Hello, Masem.

Since you are one of the most neutral people in the GG topic, I just wanted to ask you for a bit of advice on what to do in the Caption POV Issues on the GG talk page. I was thinking about whether I should take the issue to RfC, though I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to do so (and as a new user I'm trying to tread carefully since I don't know all the rules or procedures yet).

Thanks beforehand, and sorry for the trouble :). ↢ RemorA ↣ 22:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the larger problems with this article, so I would not worry about getting hung up on this small issue. The larger issues will likely be an ArbCom situation. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I guess the issue was resolved by deleting the image altogether, so I'll just wash my hands of the entire GG article series as you have advised. I can definitely see why so many people avoid it like a plague.
Thanks, and best of luck to you :). ↢ RemorA ↣ 23:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need some advice here, too

[edit]

Talk:Gamergate controversy has once again descended into personal attacks, mostly from the same person as always. Is it time to call for administrator action (or even an ArbCom on the whole thing)? Random the Scrambled (?) 03:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note to Dreadstar already when I saw that thread. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cool, thanks. Random the Scrambled (?) 03:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notification

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Keep doin what you do, Masem.

ThePhantomLemon (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

[edit]
For putting up with this for so long. DSA510 Pls No H8 06:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_14&oldid=1255504196"