Jump to content

User talk:Masem/Archive 17

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

Roguelike

[edit]

Hey. What stops you from taking this to GA? I feel there are only minor issues left. True, we don't possess a copy of Craddock's book, but it's not FAR, it's just GA. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugog Nizdast: It probably needs a good copyedit and/or PR aspect. Yes, I'd like to get more of the book in there, and there's a figure that I know exists in forums, showing a nice "tree" of the roguelikes but one that I can't find in an RS outside of the two main branches, but its near there. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:StagecoachGroup.svg

[edit]

Is it free to use in the UK? --George Ho (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Likely not, not with the smaller text and gradient part. Clearly PD in US. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

[edit]
This is because I honestly expected nothing to come of the conversation on "Nerds" but then you surprised me! Cheers! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as I hope you see, I wasn't trying to eliminate any discussion of the modern take on that scene, but just that as an encyclopedia we do need to be careful of introducing modern stances on historical events that weren't originally in that light; this does not at all prevent us from presenting separately the modern stance in a retrospective approach. The section I added likely can be expanded on, I just wanted to show it should be included and where it would be properly included. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

[edit]

Three's Company cast photos

[edit]

Do above images help readers' understanding of the television sitcom? There have been free images. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they meet NFCC here. As you note, you have a free image of the cast from an earlier season. You can always use free images of the S4 + beyond actors individually to flesh out those others. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 November

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Lover front covers

[edit]

Right now there are non-free US front cover and ineligible UK front cover. Does the US one meet NFCC criteria? --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the cover of first release. --MASEM (t) 06:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "First release"? --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The US version was out first, as such it is the first release and even if a secondary release has a free image, the cover of first release is allowed to be used. --MASEM (t) 07:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laura Branigan - Gloria.png

[edit]

I invite you to FFD on this image. I won't provide links directly to the FFD; you can click file link above. --George Ho (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was mine! --Allygggggg (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US side label is also okay, right? (I don't know whether to discuss it here or there.) George Ho (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be, the Atlantic logo is not copyrightable. --22:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the Side-A label free or unfree? --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's uncopyrightable under US threshold of originality, so it is free. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... Most side labels are labeled unfree. Can you propose to deem them free to use at WP:VPP or WT:NFC? --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not that straight forward, it depends on the label markings and logo. For example, the Chrysalis label is a non-free image so any record side labels with it will be non-free. the Atlantic logo is uncopyrightable in the US and as the rest of the label is text and simple colors, there's no other copyright. (The only possible other copyright is the photograph of the label, but as a 2D recreation of a primarily 2D work, that's considered under US copyright law as a slavish reproduction and also uncopyrightable). I've seen labels before marked free (eg see commons:Category:Record_labels). --MASEM (t) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There should be central discussion about this in En Wiki or Commons. We can't mass label them as free yet. I see the seemingly creative Capitol logo in File:CapitolRecord45Small.jpg, but the label is tagged "free". George Ho (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which the other aspect of copyright that comes into play is de minimus which means that while a image that would otherwise be free includes an image that might be copyright, if that use is so small and not the focus of the image, then the image can be still be 100% free, as with that label. It's why we might have exterior shots that include advertisements on signs and billboards but as long as their use is not the focus of the image, they can be free. That's the case of the image above. That's why there is no single guideance that we can give on record side labels whether they are free or not - it all depends on exactly what the label looks like. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facts may not be protected by US copyright law, but any certain expression of facts in a fixed medium may be copyrightable. Are you by any chance a law expert? George Ho (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to evaluate cases like labels before, and the average text markup on labels has no creative content to it,particularly in US law, as we are looking for the creativity. Labeling the song name, artist, music publisher, date of record, and copyright markings is in no way creative. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Adventure game
added a link pointing to Dave Grossman
Night Dive Studios
added a link pointing to Fast Company
System Shock 2
added a link pointing to Fast Company

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:One Way or Another (Blondie single - cover art).jpg

[edit]

Is the French (or whatever it is) cover art free to use? --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As French law has more about artistic intent that sweat of the brow or composition, it is probably copyrightable in France but PD-text in the US. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlantic Records fan logo.svg

[edit]

This image is tagged as unfree. Right or wrong? --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is free as uncopyrightable in the US. I do note there's a raster version at commons File:This is a logo for Atlantic Records.png. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dot Records logo.png

[edit]

Free or unfree? --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free by virtue of being pure text and uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

[edit]

Reference errors on 16 November

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zattoo

[edit]

Remember that we discussed mere cable channel lineups in 2012? I notice that List of channels on Zattoo (nominated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups) is reincarnated as a redirect to a section of list of channels. I do not see encyclopedic value on list of channels in the parent article. Discuss or just be bold and do something? --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can be bold and reference the AFD, but I would consider starting a discussion on that page, again referencing the AFD, suggesting it be removed or better yet replaced with prose to list the highlights. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:JustShootMeLogo.PNG

[edit]

It is used in two article. Is it free or unfree? If unfree, should it be used in awards page? --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be free and usable in both. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noindexing of non-free file pages?

[edit]

Masem, why are image description pages that have non-free images not hidden from search engine indexers and other web crawlers? I think it would make a great deal of sense to hide pages which we claim are constructed so that they can't be reused (restricted by license and file properties like image size). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why; first glance it sounds like a good idea but I don't know if there are any gotchas. It technically can be done (first step would be to inject the right code into the non-free rational templates and then worry about those nfc without templates), but we'd need community consensus for that , you might want to try suggesting it at WP:VPP. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask about it at WP:VPT (rather than at VPP; I want to ask about those "gotchas" first) soon. I've found myself brainstorming with NFC ideas as of recently, so I have another interesting idea: Why is there no guideline that would suggest that NFC files had some indication of this status in their filename? I'm guessing that NFC files leak into articles they are not intended to be used in because users just copy the location from wikitext without ever going to the image description page. In some cases (photos of historical events, and of people) it's not obvious that a file is non-free until you go to the description page. There are some options: a guideline to include an indication of the status in the filename; adding hidden comments in the wikitext after every non-free file; even a separate "Nonfreefile:" namespace could exist as now a non-free file is indistinguishable from eg. files hosted at Commons. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Abyss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tidal wave. 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) 09:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with AV citations for List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters

[edit]

Thanks for your edit on the List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters article. Seeing how there is clearly more where that came from, I would appreciate help looking for more sources not just for character design and creation, but also insight on the characters from the actors themselves. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Immblueversion Definitely all the vids that captured panels from the major cons would be good sources. I would keep in mind we should make sure we're talking video uploaders that would appear to have legit allowance (like Everfree Network for pre 2015 cons, or the cons themselves as I think BC has done). Cam footage has to be right out. As a note, I had to search back to find EQDs notes on that specific video as to pull out about when they said what they said about Bulk, so you might want to search con reports from EQD, DHN, and HN. Do keep in mind many of the panels are tongue-in-cheek so you have definitely need to review context and if something seems iffy, you shouldn't include it. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlanisMorissetteIronic.jpg

[edit]

What about this image then? It is tagged as FFD. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg

[edit]

I had the deletion of the British "Material Girl" artwork reviewed, but the result was "endorsed". The UK image was used in also France, Germany, and Italy. Spain and Portugal used the North American artwork. Should I re-review the deletion? --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The label is only used if there's no cover art. I'm presuming there is already a US cover in place that makes the album picture unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize (OneRepublic song)

[edit]

There are two images with exact same artwork but different text. Is the use excessive? --George Ho (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the second cover fails NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MCQ answer

[edit]

Thank you for helping to clarify things at WP:MCQ#Fair use of logo. No. 17 can be confusing sometimes, even to me, but the example you gave really helped. I also appreciate you mentioning that simply adding a nfur was not necessarily the way to go. Many editors, in such cases, seem to feel that a nfur makes everything good to go and thus fail to address the concerns you and Hammersoft pointed out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries: An Nfur assures no speedy deletion, but it has to still be evaluated, which is what NFCR was meant for but now obviously what to address at FFD. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26

[edit]

The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your abilities as administrator

[edit]

I think you are too good for In the News. Lately, the folks decided to keep the Crisis as ongoing in the Main Page. I guess I'll nominate either Syrian Civil War or any other War for ongoing in the light of consensus there. --George Ho (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Rock Band 4
added a link pointing to Bethesda
Roguelike
added a link pointing to Hack (video game)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NFC issue

[edit]

You are invited to discuss NFC at Talk:Muhammad/images#File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.jpg has no FUR for Depictions of Muhammad. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

[edit]

Capitol Records logos

[edit]

Are File:Capitollogo1969.jpg and/or File:CapitolRecords Logo.png eligible for copyright protection? I tried finding Copyright Renewal Registration for the latter but found none in any catalog. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1969 one is not eligible, the second can be, though if it was renewed or not I have no idea. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending RfC re "delete and redirect"

[edit]

Masem, the pending RfC is phrased in a partisan manner in order to bias its outcome. It uses non-neutral phrasing and it misrepresents long-standing AfD !voting options as well as so-called standard practice. As an administrator who favors the other side of this debate, I would ask that you close this discussion until a neutrally worded RfC question replaces the present problematically phrased one. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia Guide to Deletion

[edit]

Masem, as an administrator, I thought you would be interested to know that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard does not know our well-established AfD procedures. Moreover, anyone who suggests that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome needs to do some more reading; nowhere in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Editing policy is such a preference for the preservation of article history (as opposed to article content -- not the same thing) actually stated. The Guide to Deletion recognizes the distinction recognizes the distinction between history and content, and the validity of an !vote to delete the history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I would presume we are talking about the case when the !vote is for "Redirect" (or "Merge and Redirect") and not for "Delete and Redirect" the latter being the explicit consensus to delete the history and redirect. If the !vote is just "Redirect", then per PRESERVE, there is no need to delete that when the redirect is made. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)"
Masem, I would ask that you read the related DRV threads from November 28 and November 30. The argument in the underlying DRVs is not whether "redirect" should be interpreted as "redirect, and keep article history"; that is already well established by the meanings and procedures outlined in the Guide to Deletion since at least 2005. The real argument in both DRVs is whether DRV participants may simply disregard explicit "delete and redirect" AfD !votes and consensus outcomes because of a supposed policy preference for preserving article history. Using this logic, "delete" and "delete and redirect" have simply been interpreted out of existence at the discretion of a DRV review in favor of preserving article history. I have no idea whether you favor such an interpretation, but for me it is a bridge too far. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that's not what I'm seeing. The discussion is not trying to marginalize out "Delete and Redirect" !votes, but how to weight and take action on "Redirect" !votes that otherwise don't specify keep or delete in future discussions, so that the closing admin has a better idea of whether in creating the redirect they should delete it first or keep the history. Now, in that specific DRV, I would have to agree on the original AFD close that the !votes edged on deleting before redirecting even when taking just the "Redirect" !votes, but I don't see the current RFC as a means to disrupt that, but to provide better understanding for future AFDs. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I urge you to take a second look at how this RfC is evolving and specifically at the comments of Richard Alan Norton and Cunard: this really is about emasculating if not practically eliminating "delete and redirect" as an outcome. They are "demanding" that AfD participants provide valid reasons for the deletion of article history, and are suggesting that those reasons be limited to BLP and copyright issues. If this were merely about clarifying that "redirect" !votes and outcomes include the retention of article history, I would vote to support that (it's already the established practice), but that is not what this is about. Not at all. Unless you believe that article history should be retained regardless of "delete" and "delete and redirect" consensus outcomes at AfD, I urge you to look at this again. The RfC question is poorly worded, but their intent is clear from their comments throughout the discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had any doubt what this is really about: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely nothing in Curand's statement towards elimination of "Delete and redirect". It's clear in that they are speaking of any !votes that do not supply policy-based reasoning for supporting the !vote. I do agree that the initial wording that used "tactic" does suggest its more of the extended inclusionist/deletionists war but it is far from a non-neutral statement, but that has since changed. And again, when I go to the DRV that was launched, while you might think that it is policy to retain article history on redirect, the comments in the DRV make it clear that some editors feel that should not be the case, so it seems like a valid aspect to start a RFC over. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote heresy

[edit]

Hi there.

With regard to this edit, I'm still not convinced, and think that it can be read either way. Based on your understanding though should the similar hatnote for Total Recall (2012 film) be removed?

WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, but many remake films seem to have the hatnote for either the original or the remake.

PS: I don't really consider it heresy, I just liked the alliteration. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should also be removed off the 2012 film. Consider that if a user is searching for one of those films, but unaware of our (YYYY film) titling, "Total Recall" or even "Total Recall (film)" will land them at Total Recall, a disambiguation page that will them to the correct film, so a secondary hatnote should really not be needed. That said, I would say that the lede of both articles should have a link to the other film (the 2012 linking to the 1990 for sure, the 1990 linking to the 2012 may be a last statement in the lede) as a replacement for the concept of the hatnote here. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I get it - the articles in question will only be generally reached from the disambig page (not counting internal bluelinks, where the hatnote would not be necessary anyway) so by default they'll be sent to the correct article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. It would be different if, say , Total Recall (film) was a redirect to the 1990 film, then a hatnote to the 2012 film would be fully appropriate. But there's effectively no practical way to get directly to one film or the other if you search on vague terms, you will always go through the disambiguation page so the hatnote becomes unnecessary since they would have had to navigate from the disambiguation page to get there. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

[edit]
Wow, somebody's really trying to spoil the Amazing Race 28 locations. Thanks for being so vigilant in removing them. Mark RaceFan (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Game of thrones telltale games title screen.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Game of thrones telltale games title screen.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonauts 2

[edit]

Well Masem. Psychonauts 2 is officially a thing. How you feeling about that? GamerPro64 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mystery Science Theater 3000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syndication. 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) 09:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Witness iOS release date

[edit]

Hi,

I think you misunderstood the edit you reverted. Nobody is claiming that the Windows release date will be later than PS4, but iOS will. Have another look? :) Thomas Tvileren (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Thomas Tvileren (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread where the comma on that phrase was. Thanks. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

psychonauts

[edit]

Can we make psychonauts a game series on the wikipedia? Crazybob2014 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If P2 meets its mark, possibly. I'm hesistant if that game does not materialize. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's discuss

[edit]

I've opened the discussion and you've inserted a one-sentence comment before reverting again, and I've replied. Convince me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

[edit]

Invitation on a proposal

[edit]

You are invited to the MOS/Film discussion here, regarding about release dates in year in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

[edit]

Notability of beauty pageants

[edit]

This issue actually highlights the absurdity of WP:PORNBIO. Aren't state-level beauty pageants more significant than "well-known and significant industry award"s within pornography? sst✈(discuss) 13:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Copyright question. Why wouldn't File:Screenshot wikiwand.JPG, as a composition, be copyrighted by Wikiwand? I don't see the explicit permission of the developers and I see nothing in the terms about licensing its screenshots/printouts. Or is the layout not copyrightable on its own because all of the content is available under free licenses? Would I, for instance, be able to upload this screengrab of Wikiwand's Menacer rendering to Commons under a free license (while noting the individual copyright of the constituent images and deleting the fair use ones)? Appreciate your help czar 23:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar my best guess is yes, you can do this. Taking the PD elements out of the first image leaves you with text and simple shapes which would be comparable to File:Start81.png (the Windows Metro interface sans images), which would fail copyright protection in the US. Similarly on your image, removing all copyrightable elements from another Wikiland screenshot should be acceptable to make a free image. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]
File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

[edit]

File:Michael Kwan Jing Kit 1982.jpg

[edit]

This image is of retired living person. Shall I use it or have it deleted soon? --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's still alive, the picture cannot be used unless itself is a subject of discussion .--MASEM (t) 04:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christopher Castile Beethoven Ted Newton 1993.jpg

[edit]

Same for this one? --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even though the actor's aged, their young appearance doesn't seem to be of note. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Leader's Greetings to you!

[edit]
Leader's Greetings!

Dear Masem,
A wise man said "man is the master of everything and decides everything". Reflecting the single-hearted unity of our editors, I have decided to send these Leader's Greetings to you – Masem – a masterful Wikipedian professing indomitable independence, creativity and consciousness in editing. May the popular masses and world progressive people enjoy your contributions next year, too! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays on behalf of the North Korea working group, Masem!

Wishing you all the best . . .

[edit]

Merry Christmas, Masem, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DARK KNIGHT ERROR

[edit]

"He destroys a the hospital" is bad grammar. It should be "He destroys the hospital". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.60.230 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Knight

[edit]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.60.230 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Yuletide

[edit]

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]

Wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy new year...

Codename Lisa (talk)

Your reversions to steam

[edit]

Hi Masem, please have a check of the WP:3RR before reverting any more edits on Steam. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Here's to another year for the project, Masem. Hope to see more quality work from ya. GamerPro64 06:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roguelike

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roguelike 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 Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roguelike

[edit]

The article Roguelike you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Roguelike for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Video game Barnstar

For improving Rougelike and making it another well-referenced genre article. SharkD  Talk  01:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Beginner's Guide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refund. 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) 09:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

[edit]

2016

[edit]
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in Rock Band DLC

[edit]

Hi there Masem. I've noticed your contributions to Rock Band DLC pages here both before and after Rock Band 4 was released, so I figured you would be a good person to talk to about this. The page for 2015 DLC is a mess in my eyes right now. Only half of the DLC has the "family friendly" and "additional Rock Band 3 features" filled out. Not only that, but where are people getting the "family friendly" info from? I can't find such info on Rock Band 4 DLC. And do you think we should get rid of the "additional Rock Band 3 features category" for 2016 DLC, since it'll be solely Rock Band 4 DLC from that point on? I can understand it being on the 2015 DLC since we got some Rock Band 3 DLC earlier this year, but it by no means had the "core" features because they didn't chart keys on them, as they were preparing for Rock Band 4, which has no keys. So I don't understand that. Hopefully you can help organize this a bit. Percivl (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Percivl: That column does need to be updated, I think the best route is to rename it to "In-game features" and note what RB3 (eg harmonies, pro guitar, keys) and RB4 (freestyle guitar solo, freestyle vocals) that the song has. This would have to track to all previous years too since most existing DLC have been updated to include these. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea. What about Family Friendly, should we just remove that column next year? I ask because the RB4 songs no longer denote a family friendly or supervision recommended rating. Percivl (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove it. It's not something picked on by sources, in contrast to DLC having RB3 and RB4 enhancements. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Could you maybe get this started? You seem to be more well-versed in wiki code than I am, I just wanted to discuss this with someone so the page can get fixed soon. Percivl (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

[edit]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Makin It tv series intertitle.jpg

[edit]

Is the logo original and creative enough for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, it is not a regular font. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satoru Iwata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localization. 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) 09:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

[edit]

Nomination of Arizona Wildcats football series records and three others for deletion

[edit]

Masem, necause of the interest you expressed in a closely related topic during the discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records, I am notifying you that a new discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted:

  1. Arizona Wildcats football series records;
  2. Charlotte 49ers football series records;
  3. Texas A&M Aggies football series records; and
  4. UMass Minutemen football series records.

These articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wildcats football series records until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the articles during the discussion, including to improve the articles to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User generated non-free SVGs

[edit]

I was reading comments in this archived discussion and noticed your comment "What we don't allow is the recreation as a vector of a non-free logo (in other words, no user-created non-free SVGs are allowed)". Could you please point me to where this is actually documented so that I can direct editors to it in future? I've been unable to find it. --User:AussieLegend 07:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It extends from here [2] and [3], in that user-generated SVGs of non-frees is potentially violating commercial opportunity, the example being that a user-recreated SVG of an album cover could be used as a replacement for the actual cover art in high-quality printing. You can also see more here [4]. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor who wall crack.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor who wall crack.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero Live

[edit]

Hey Masem. Just letting you know that the retention period for Guitar Hero Live for Wikipedia:Featured topics/Guitar Hero series is going to end last this month on the 20th. So you might need to prepare it for GAN soon. GamerPro64 20:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually pretty close, with really only the gameplay section needing a touch of referencing. I'll get it nom'd at GAN and can work up a few things in the few days it takes for editors to start a review. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Also, I have no clue what the retention period for List of songs in Guitar Hero Live is. What was established that those lists? GamerPro64 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know off hand but the start timer on that should be Nov 14 2015 (when I expanded it out). --MASEM (t) 23:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. That seems like enough time to it to pass FLC. GamerPro64 23:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I just recently remembered that Guitar Hero Live is now a Good Article but not part of the topic. Might need to start a supp nom for it soon. Masem GamerPro64 02:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Roguelike

[edit]

The article Roguelike you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roguelike 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 Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2015

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2015, 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) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free / fair use exact image size

[edit]

Hi,

I inquired about the images on the Half-Life 2 article some time ago, about why the images were so small. You replied saying that 640px wide was too large for a non-free fair use image in a video game. For the life of me, I cannot find an article on Wikipedia stating exact maximum sizes for ANY non-free images much less video games.

Can you provide me a link that says all non-free images on Wikipedia must be 300px or less? It seems some official article of Wikipedia must of stated maximum size for non-free images to be 300px wide or less.. since virtually no images on this site are larger. Thank you!

Cody-7 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You want to read WP:IMAGERES, which is based on meeting WP:NFCC#3. Generally, non-free should not be greater than 0.1 megapixels. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amiibo Group.jpg

[edit]

Your take on this? Would it be better to upload a version where the photographer licensed under cc-by-sa or freer so we're only dealing with the fair use derivative aspect? (Where is the policy on that?) czar 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of any Amiboo would be derivative definitely. I would agree that a free-er version would be of a person that licenses their photo as CC-BY even though the objects they photographed are copyrighted (the photo would be non-free, but its a free-er form of that). That would fall under NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing closure by TRM on European migrant crisis

[edit]

There are three "keep" votes, but I don't see how it constitutes unanimous consensus. Can you undo the closure by TRM and then comment on it if you support removing it from the Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo in Barbary Coast Article Again Under Threat of Removal

[edit]

This concerns a previously discussed and approved historic photo [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_February_27#File:Dancehalls_of_Pacific_Street_Facing_West_San_Francisco_1909_SFLibraryCode_AAB-6692_CropA.jpg ] , of which you weighed in the discussion. Stefan2 is once again encouraging its removal by placing it on the Files For Discussion page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_9#File:Dancehalls_of_Pacific_Street_Facing_West_San_Francisco_1909_SFLibraryCode_AAB-6692_CropA.jpg ]. When you get a chance, could you please weigh in on the new discussion to preserve the use of that valuable historic photo? Thanks. James Carroll (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited This Side of Paradise (Star Trek: The Original Series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appendix. 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) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

[edit]

List of most viewed YouTube videos

[edit]

You seriously expect someone to update the viewcount on all 30 videos? I mean it's not as if there is a specific as of date let alone time, but rather a month so technically speaking all the details would still be correct. I mean, the view count figure would immediately be wrong anyway so what's the problem? Feudonym (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a reason that the date column says what date it was last updated. It currently says Jan 17, so a partial update today is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Guitar Hero Live

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guitar Hero Live 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 AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early access video games

[edit]

Just noticed you created this category. Great idea! I'm not to familiar how categorizing categories works though. I was thinking of adding Category:Video games or maybe Category:Video game development. Would that make sense? —Strongjam (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Video game marketing" makes the most sense but VG Dev also too. Both added. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Guitar Hero Live

[edit]

The article Guitar Hero Live you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Guitar Hero Live for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

[edit]

Your GA nomination of Guitar Hero Live

[edit]

The article Guitar Hero Live you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guitar Hero Live 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 AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iowa Hawkeyes football series records and three others for deletion

[edit]

Masem, because of the interest you expressed in a closely related topic during the discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records, I am notifying you that a new discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted:

  1. Iowa Hawkeyes football series records;
  2. Alabama Crimson Tide football series records;
  3. Michigan Wolverines football series records; and
  4. Michigan State Spartans football series records.

These articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Hawkeyes football series records until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the articles during the discussion, including to improve the articles to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

File:Examples of Ibid, from "Justice" by Michael J- Sandel 2013-04-08 20-17.jpg would be copyrighted text, no? (Either way, I think it's a poor example of what it's trying to do and that there are free use alternatives, but is there an issue with this being on Commons?) czar 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is actually "data", since there's no specific creativity in documentation of reference sources. (It would be like the listings in a phone book.) And as you can't copyright data, then that should be okay, solely considering if it is free or not. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 January

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Witness (2016 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alphago-logo.png

[edit]

Is this image free to use in the US? --George Ho (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The gradients on the inner symbol make it 3D enough that I would say no, it's copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 February

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adam lanza sandy hook shooter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Are the following PD-textlogo:

I'm happy to forward these to FFD if you suggest having others to take a look. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: of these: NewCUSALogo is non-free, the 3D effects are not simple and adding to originality. Assuming the Clemson paw SVG is PD as it states, then the wordmark with the claw for the "O" is PD. The rest are PD-textlogo otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

[edit]

DYK

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Upside Down & Inside Out at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 05:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race articles to be cleaned up

[edit]

Hello Masem, I noticed you've done clean editing with The Amazing Race 28 page that you shortened the article summaries on each legs. Can you please do copy-editing and clean these sentences in all past American Amazing Race seasons for now that you'll be impressed to Wiki readers? ApprenticeFan work 04:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retention Period

[edit]

I have a feeling you haven't noticed by previous pings so I'm reminding you about the retention period for Guitar Hero Live and the Guitar Hero topic, which ends on February 20th. GamerPro64 00:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

[edit]

Permadeath

[edit]

Can you please take a look at Permadeath? It's getting bad there again. An editor there is calling editors "retarded" and saying that removing unreliable sources is "defacing the article". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PD-logos

[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, but are File:International Rescue Committee (logo).png and File:Monsoon accessorize logo.svg PD-(text)logo (we really need a process for this...) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both would PD logo (the accessorize is definitely from a type face). --MASEM (t) 03:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about File:CoD Logo.png? A bunch of Wiki Ed students have included this on their user pages. I'd rather check with you before I bite them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's edge case that might need discussion, I can see arguments for it being PD (if we consider something like the Best Western logo as uncopyrightable) but it's not just "simple shapes and text". I would consider it non-free for the present (and remove it from said user pages) but I don't know a venue where to get more discussion of its possible PD nature. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it is non-free. I'll removed inappropriate uses. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Copper-gang.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DoE videos

[edit]

Hey Masem, I have some videos from the U.S. Dept of Energy. Is it sufficient to assume that these videos are in the PD and fine for Commons since they were produced by the dept, or would we need special assurances? Do you know whether they have to mark if they were using unoriginal content under fair use in their videos? czar 19:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I know on Antonin Scalia there was an issue with a portrait not being PD because the photographer wasn't a government employee, but had instead licensed the work to the government. I could imagine there are similar issues lurking with videos. For example, this video has a clip from Back to the Future, likely making it non-free. Best instead to just check the individual licenses for the videos. This one, for example, is under the Creative Commons license and would be fine for commons. — Strongjam (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is known that not everything "published" by the DOE is necessary a work of the US Gov't. You definitely need to check the video's licensing and look for obvious inclusion of fair use. Portions of the videos that appear to be solely from the DOE employees would be okay as uploads. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Rocket League
added a link pointing to Knight Rider
Superhot
added a link pointing to Fast Company

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

[edit]

Yes, RfC/U would have been the way to go; I wish we hadn't done away with it. Now, "harsh editing restrictions was taken simply based on volume of discussion and ratio of talk-to-mainspace edits, and seems a way to silence what seem to be reasonable counterpoints to at least discuss"--as I said repeatedly, they weren't simply based on volume and ratio, and "a way to silence", well, I would have been the one dong to silencing of reasonable counterpoints, right? Which suggests I did so intentionally. You may not have meant to suggest my intent, but it did come across that way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As best as I can tell, you simply closed and implemented the consensus based on a request to close it, the very definition of uninvolved so there's no reason to assume you're involved in the debate. You didn't craft the restriction; it appears it originated with Viriditas and cemented by Sammy. As I noted, ignoring anything else, that judging your close as an uninvolved admin seems reasonable because you simply implemented the suggest that had consensus, and that I do believe that it's a reasonable close as there is really no strong guidance anywhere about how to handle restrictions on talk pages (in either direction). And even if you were the one to act to remove any violations following that, again, that's following the consensus; you are the proverbial messenger in all this so I don't see any issue on your actions. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spacechem revert: proprietary presumed?

[edit]

Your reversion on the SpaceChem article seems to me to be inadequately justified. You said, "it is generally presumed that game software is proprietary". By whom is that presumed? By Wikipedia? I doubt it. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though. Please fill me in. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By copyright law, for the most part, which presumes copyright for any published work unless otherwise indicated. If someone publishes a game for profit, it is clearly proprietary software, so it goes without saying that a game like Spacechem is proprietary. It is more rare for cases to be released without that type of license (such as open source software), and so if that's the case, we'll call it out, but otherwise we make the reasonable assumption that a commercial piece of software is proprietary. (notice we don't use that language for any other game article.). --MASEM (t) 00:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

[edit]

I've opened a case @ Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard for Sandy Hook. Please also be advised that I complained about your advocating for what I consider censorship and being an Admin. You were civil, which I'm not always, and I wish I had mentioned it sooner, but I didn't know you to be an Admin until I visited here to verify your user name. And I feel strongly about censorship. Tapered (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Upside Down & Inside Out

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western painting

[edit]

Does this article somehow get a pass on the NFCC? Or is a major trimming in order? czar 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to get the Visual Arts project to cut down on gallery use in these articles (see History of painting) with little luck, they insist they need that many images. There might be need for broader participation. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that the galleries are overkill, but even the other images are not being used properly with the NFCC—we can find free use alternatives for many of the style differences and the rest aren't even being called out in the text as illustrative of some quality of the era. I think the conversation would be best in some image-focused forum than in the visual arts project, which is relatively quiet. Please do ping me when it comes up again. czar 03:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 27

[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to know that my edits in the first two legs of that Amazing Race season was reverted and I re-edited to make shorter. [5]. I may have to revert back to a proper version? ApprenticeFan work 02:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem/Archive_17&oldid=1078492205"