User talk:Masem/Archive 20

I was wondering if you wanted to start an article on him? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's much more beyond his work on PUBG to make a new article, yet. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Was wondering why you deleted my edit https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:7109:CD00:B89F:5755:A43E:4CB3 citing "Good Faith". I know what good faith means but do not see how it applies to this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7109:CD00:C5D5:DBD7:B043:8473 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Here's the rest of Masem's revert reason: "RedLetterMedia's reviews shouldn't be mentioned in the works they review." -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Basically, RLM's reviews, particularly the Mr. Plinkett ones, should be taken with a grain of salt. I know that those review do have elements that are considered fair and perhaps unique and insightful criticism , but then you have separate that from the heavy dose of sarcasm. So I wouldn't take those reviews, on their own, as an appropriate source to use for reception material on a movie's page. However, as was the case with his original Star Wars prequels, if other secondary sources point to that review and say "that's valid criticism", then inclusion via way of those sources may make sense. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect to: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Prey_(2017_video_game)&oldid=794973568 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedskinsFanHTTR (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC) I believe you're wrong about the use of the singular they being "well established." According to the Manual of Style: "There is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular they. Though some uses of they with a singular antecedent or referent are well established, some uses remain contentious, and style advice varies." (https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Gender-neutral_language). Given that this usage is admittedly controversial, and given that the character of Morgan must be either male or female, it does not make sense to favor the controversial usage over the uncontroversial one, especially when many Wikipedia readers find the singular they extremely jarring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedskinsFanHTTR (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Within video game articles, and the widespread availability of characters with selectable gender, singular they IS widely accepted. Essentially, as the MOS says, some uses are well established, and this is one of them. You're making this change to one video game article when essentially every video game article falling into this category uses singular they. -- ferret (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That we are in pretty much complete disagreement at RSN, as we often are. But I just want you to know that you're my favorite wikipedian to argue with: You write well-thought out comments with good arguments, and don't get emotional about it. I think you're always worth listening to, even when you're wrong. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Thanks, I appreciate that - I do see these more as debates rather than arguments, which may mean there's never going to be a point of agreement, but (at times) helps to get a way to then explain policy/guideline better in other situations or improve language of what's there, or figure out other approaches, rather than how many other editors quickly let emotions take over to attack their opponents. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I honestly think a lot of editors simply care too much about whether a debate goes their way. Personally, it doesn't bother me to "lose" a debate here, because it doesn't really affect me at all. I get the impression that you're much the same way. But I need to make sure say so, because when a debate is piquing my interest, I get dryer and less humorous than usual. It often gives the impression that I'm seriously vested in it, when it really means pretty much the opposite; I'm far more interested in the "argument" than the outcome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Since you agree with me (and so does the ITN nominator), would you please revert the blurb on the main page back to the more neutral one? I don't think we need to discuss this endlessly; the blurb should not have been changed arbitrarily without consensus and we all agree. Enough?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll wait for a few more voices on ERRORS, just to make sure. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is frustrating. The thing is, I don't see why we have to wait for this. There was already consensus for the old blurb. It should be the other way around--we should need consensus for the new blurb.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is free in the US, it is free on English Wikipedia. While it is not considered free for Wikimedia Commons, that is not relevant here. As it is free, it does not have to be minimal use on enwiki. Are you keeping {{Non-free game cover}} in the file just so it belongs into Category:Video game covers? Maybe there should be a free-use video game cover category too. - hahnchen 13:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem, I've noticed on the endless debates about labels that you're taking a strong stand for neutral language. I'm trying to prepare a wikipedia essay right now along these lines. The goal is to coalesce the argument for avoiding subjective labels in wikivoice even when widely used by RSes.

• User:Nanite/Labels_essay

I invite you to feel free to jump in and edit. --Nanite (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Publicity photographs without rationale was recently changed to nogallery. Have worked on this for more than 7 years and it was always displayed in gallery format; gallery format makes it easier and faster for me to work with. Go back to the way it was or keep the change? Thanks, We hope (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

We generally do not allow for categories with non-free to have galleries, but we have made exceptions for maintenance categories. My question though is, why do you need to see the images in gallery form before the appropriate maintenance in this specific case? I personally don't think they're needed on reviewing the purpose of the category, but it would help to know why you prefer them, and then we can approach WT:NFC to request an exemption. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It may be habit since I've checked the category periodically and worked there for 7+ years. Having them in view makes it easy for me to see which are video/album covers or logos, etc. If I'm working in this category and am short for RL time, I may be able to take care of a few "easy calls" like that before RL catches up with WP. ;) It's also helpful for trying to determine how many non-free images have been uploaded for a particular article. If I see a lot of them for something like a TV show or superhero article, I know most of them really won't pass FFD, so better to spend the time listing them there than adding "has rationale". Have checked this category and worked at it for quite a while. I can remember when there were 2-3,000 files in it; after working on that, I said I'd never let it get that full again. We hope (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the ITN nomination. Not sure why I was being ignored... Could I please get an ITN recognition on my talkpage for it?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Masem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Trusttri (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Masem! I want your help in the PES 2018 article, there is a user, TDLWH, who is edit warring and using aggressive language. He/She is not listening to me, when I asked the reason for adding "officially" in the article. Instead giving me their reason, he/she is constantly fighting. I also warned them about the three revert rules and said to see the wwikipedia's rules before editing but again he/she reverted my edit. Please solve this matter as soon as possible, I'm losing my temper and don't want to use aggressive language anymore. Thanks in advance. 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And one more thing, after checking this matter, if you feel appropriate, then please report him/her to be blocked. I'm using my phone to access wikipedia and don't know how to report someone. Pure conSouls (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem , firstly I want u to know that the edit of PureConsouls edit in PES 2018 (which I always revert) is deleting the word "Officially" , and this word was written in the article when it was made 4 the 1st time , so that means the word is necessary 4 the article , cuz almost anyone can make a parody , imitation , or an unoriginal version of the game B4 the original one is released , so the readers "must" know that the original and the official game will b released "Officially" in that date . And many people or companies can make a games with the same name (PES 2018) just to be highlighted , and absolutely the reader will B stuck between the official release and the unofficial one . But if the facts are unlike my talk (I mean if the word "Officially" was not written when the article was made or if the word is not necessary -according to u or another experts in this encyclopedia.) If that will happen , I will b ready to delete the word , and not writing it again . Greetings :) TDLWH (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you make me laugh, man! No one is allowed to make a same copy of the game or use its trademark, didn't you know about copyrights. No company will do that otherwise the copyright holder will sue them. And making a video game is not everyone's cup of tea, no single person can make a whole video game in such a short amount of time, it takes very long time and a very big team of experts to make a video game, everyone knows that. 😂 Pure conSouls (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain why Travis Strikes Again: No More Heroes is a stub? It would seem like, to me, a start-class article; it needs expansion, sourcing, etc. but to a lesser extent than a stub does. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: It is missing at least two large sections (gameplay and reception) and has under-developed sections on the other big two. These are out of necessity, of course, but that makes it no-less a stub. (All in my opinion, of course.) --Izno (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much this. It really shouldn't be a separate article at this point because there's so little we can talk to it. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: (and Masem, of course) You guys seem to be more informed about video game articles than I, so I'll go ahead and leave it up to you two. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering, is there a reason Symmetra can have her rework details listed on this page, but not Mercy?Regards,--Euan112358 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The major difference is that Mercy has her own article, with tons more detail, so we try to keep the character list to the most pertinent details. Symmetra does not have a separate article, so all relevant details stay in the character list. -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Imho, too much info on the current drama. Noteworthy if there is really legal actions. Would cut it down to one sentence. prokaryotes (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Btw. do you think the Bluehole article is now noteworthy? It was a rather brief article prior to AFD a few months ago. prokaryotes (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be, but hard to say. Just to note on the revision I just did, with the new PC Gamer article, its clear the cloning aspect is not the issue but that Epic has insider knowledge of Bluehole's plans and controls their engine, which needs to be clarified in contrast to article from the day before that all assumed it was about cloning and ownership of the battle royale format. This is no longer a simple issue, and while I do think revisiting the section when more is known (maybe its resolved easily, maybe not) , we can determine how to trim down later, but probably for now we need the larger clarity.--MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Insider knowledge is entirely irrelevant. This is about replicating a game mode idea, such as CTF (Capture the Flag, Rocket Arena and so on). Let's keep discussion on the talk page, sorry for posting here in the first place. Cheers prokaryotes (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, about resolving questions not resolved in the earlier RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2017
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2017, the project has:

---

Content

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Hell (Father Ted) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Perspective

List of Mass Effect characters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem. I'm posting this here because (1) you're an admin and (2) you've lots of experience dealing with non-free content in general, but have been involved most of the discussions involving this particular type. A fairly new editor named Vectorebus has been converting quite a number of non-free files to svg format and using them to replace existing files in various articles. I understand there is no clear consensus on this type of thing and some feel such conversions are not in compliance with WP:NFCCP, especially when an official vetor file is not being used. Some of the files are also being added to articles without proper rationales or where the non-svg file had been prevously removed per a FFD discussion, but these things can be resolved as is normally done. My main concern is the new svgs because if they are going to be eventually deleted via FFD, then they probably shouldn't be used in the first place because they will create orphans of files they replace. Anyway, I've started a discussion about this at User talk:Vectorebus#Non-free svg files so perhaps you can clarify things further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The key with non-free SVGs is that we only allow them if the official entity provides them directly (which can include extraction from an official PDF). User-created ones are not acceptable. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for takking a look and posting a comment on Vectorebus7s user talk. That was my general understanding, but it does seem that many of these were simply user-created which would seem to mean that they are not allowed per the NFCCP. However, I also remember this being a point of contention in various discussions at WT:NFCC and WP:MCQ with some feeling such logos should be allowed regardless of being user-created, so I figured I'd ask for another opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I added more sources to your vg preservation draft. Just letting you know. TarkusAB^talk 03:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Thank you for that, that will help :) --MASEM (t) 02:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

—swpb^{T go beyond} 14:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not want to propose this at the Village Pump yet because it would probably look like forum shopping but I thought I would run the concept by you. Is it possible to create a list similar to this, but for deletion discussions where NOTNEWS is applicable? The list could potentially be related either to recent events and/or nomination statements that argue NOTNEWS. I thought such a list could benefit the community by promoting a wider discussion open to more editors. I have been trying to form proposals as of late that could help address the NOTNEWS question, and, while I do not expect everything is resolved with the list, I believe it can move us in a good direction.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events should be the equivalent tag for news-related topics. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to drop you a line to commend you for your civility and generally the high level of discourse that you've maintained in the discussions on this topic. While I do believe there are too many such discussions, I welcome seeing that you've dropped a line on this or that as I know that discussion with you will be intellectually stimulating. If I haven't always behaved likewise, I do apologize.

I have a favor to ask. I've been monitoring the articles that have been spun out over sexual harassment. Believe it or not, I'm actually troubled by possible recentism in James Toback, especially the reference to the sexual abuse allegations in the lead paragraph. Unlike the Weinstein allegations, I don't believe any of them have wound up in the courts. It's all newspaper reporting. So I'm a wee bit troubled by that. I was wondering if you felt the same. If not, then obviously there is no problem, as I know you have strong feelings on the subject! Coretheapple (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: No worries and apologies accepted - I wasn't trying to focus on you, Jytdog was also going in that direction. I do try to stay calm even if I am passionate about "fixing" this issue with NOTNEWS.

On that Toback article, that's the type of problem I think exists here. Media in general like to focus on allegations and the like, things that paint people in a negative light. Editors should avoid that in writing articles, but it is human tendency to focus on these negatives, particularly when backed up by media. It seems right in the sense of V/RS/UNDUE, but its not how we approach an encyclopedia. That there are allegations, yes, we can't hide that, but they're only allegations, so they shouldn't be as much a focus on the article. If it turns out there's a court case, then we can discuss things differently. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm kind of surprised to hear that you feel there is no UNDUE issue here, as I think there might be. Fortunately the reference to the sex abuse allegations was removed from the lead, but it still takes up such a large proportion of the article that I lean in the direction of an UNDUE issue. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No I think there is an undue issue - it's currently a 1/3rd of the article, ignoring the filmography. Since its only allegations, it should be a brief one or two sentence thing - mentioning them is within BLP but not to the detail presently given. EG: there's currently 5 paragraphs here: First is unnecessary, second is attempting synth to connect past events to the present allegations and should be nixed at this point, third is similar situation, synth to push a point. Fourth and fifth should be kept, but trimmed- until some type of court action is made, this is all claims and accusations. I could see it covered in about 3 sentences at this point, and that would be well within UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I guess I misunderstood you. Not sure about the amount, but I agree that the emphasis bothers me. I may raise the issue on the talk page if no one else has done so already. Feel free to weigh in, if you haven't. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I explained to another user (who I think is an admin or a professional editor) on why I edit the RCT page all the time with Hasbro instead of MicroProse, so here it is (in Italics).

Well, the reason why I change MicroProse to Hasbro Interactive is that, they weren't a publisher after Hasbro Interactive acquired them, just a brand name (brand names for publishers do not classify on pages). All the original release boxed copies I have seen copyright Hasbro Interactive, not MicroProse. Here are the back covers to the Jewel Cases to prove I am right.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/rollercoaster-tycoon/cover-art/gameCoverId,157639/http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/rollercoaster-tycoon-corkscrew-follies/cover-art/gameCoverId,157772/Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)*@LTPofficial: It seems to me that perhaps MicroProse served more as the distributor than publisher, which is something the infobox phased out recently. In this case, the box does clearly say published by Hasbro Interactive, so I'll change it back. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed it back already. All of the MicroProse titles released during the Hasbro Interactive era (when they owned MicroProse) were published by Hasbro Interactive.

MicroProse was acquired by Hasbro Interactive in August 1998, and they downgraded the company to a brand name only (retaining the developers) and brand names do not count as publishers.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem. Would you might commenting at User talk:Explicit#File:Red Coat Trail (Alberta).svg? Perhaps you can help clarifying things since it has to do with whether an svg file may be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem. What's your take on File:MyNetworkTV 2D Logo.svg. It appears to be a user created svg, possibly based upon the deleted File:My Network TV Logo 3D.png. I'm not sure if the 3D or 2D aspect makes a difference, but the logo visible on the network's official website is also a png. Does the old deleted file needs to be undeleted or does a new file need to be uploaded if Wikipedia can't keep the svg? Is it possible for the svg to be treated as {{PD-logo}} even if the real logo with the 3D effects needs to be non-free?

There also appear to be a couple local-station specific logos of the main logo uploaded to Commons as File:KMOV-DT3 MYTV St. Louis.png and File:KRVU MyTV NorCal 21 2006 Logo.png, File:Rockford's My Network TV logo 2015.png, File:WTTA former logo (September 2006-September 2013).png, File:KMYL-LD Logo.png, and File:WSBK-TV logo.png. These look like derivatives of the main logo, so their copyright status probably depends upon the copyright status of the main logo, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The original image, being a US network, fails the US threshold of originality. The other images should be fine. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about making a page notice for fictional character articles—something along the lines of reminding about out-of-universe tone, that this is a general encyclopedia and that most lore is better suited for Wikia, etc. I thought a page notice would be more effective than hiding comments within the wikitext markup, but I don't think we're doing very much as an editing community to stave off the influx of in-universe cruft from eager, inexperienced writers. What do you think? czar 16:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we probably need such a template if we don't have one already. It probably should be in the same family as templates like {{long plot}}. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just caught this sitting (seemingly unnoticed) on ITN/C for a few days. Thought I'd let you know. I've gone ahead and removed it/warned the editor. Cheers, m.o.p 22:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. No idea whom that may be here. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind dropping a few comments at my current FAC? It's been a while since the last comments and I'm afraid it'll be archived. JOEBRO64 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the offensive quote and it was reverted. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Daily Mail. Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You replied to me at the teahouse, I was wondering if you could tell me more about interviews and credible sources for video games. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Masem - I am in the process of capturing the crux of your explanations at BLPN, hopefully without losing clear correlation to the arguments they address, and incorporate them into an essay that editors can refer to whenever these issues surface - and they do time and time again. Would you please review it, and feel free to add, modify or edit as you see fit? If you think it would be better to not attribute via blockquote, let me know, but I think it has more of an impact when the explanation is coming from editors/admins who are also content creators and GA/FA contributors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

How is it possible that Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations isn't either a POVFORK or an ATTACK PAGE or both? We work hard to maintain NPOV as it applies to BLPs, and I wonder what good it does or why even bother when articles like this are created, clearly politically motivated and if not political, then clearly for a cause since there is no article about Al Franken sexual abuse allegations - and there shouldn't be in my view. The most that should be allowed is mention in the BLP but in a dispassionate tone, with proper weight and balance, and with in-text attribution. I have been criticized for trying to maintain strict adherence to the 3 core content policies laid out in BLP, yet how can we as editors be expected to do our jobs when admins do nothing to stop the POV pushing, and in a few instances become part of the problem? There is a feeding frenzy in American politics because of the upcoming US elections, and it appears rather obvious that WP is being used for propaganda and SOAPBOX, especially when allegations become an entire article complete with a list of non-notable names of alleged victims who were purportedly underage decades ago when the potential crimes took place...and they are just now coming forward? Unbelievable. The way some of these breaking news events are being handled in our encyclopedia defies every policy that was written to prevent it. It's embarrassing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The We Happy Few article you reverted has no plot of the story which I provided, clearly an important part of the article so why are you reverting it just to the games setting which doesn't give enough of the games campaign? I also only featured a single image for that sub-title, are you not going to reduce the size of the development page which can clearly be reorganised.

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the info you previously added, or was already present, at the Telltale Games article could be well used on the corrsponding Telltale Tool article, since the latter is rather short and lackluster. I believe the info could be easily merged over (or vice-versa, the Telltale Tool article completely integrated into Telltale Games'). Do you think you could do that? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 19:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it likely could, though I would consider merging the Tool back to TTG, since only TTG uses it. I will get to that later. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ISOGG_wiki did you perhaps really mean "Yes and no"? I suspect this is the case since the first question asks "are pages on ISOGG wiki user generated" and you commented "USERG absolutely applies." It confused me at first and I had to correct my original response. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Mind having a go at it? HarrisonSteam (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Should recuse or not, please strike the incorrect assertion about the violation of the topic ban or that it was "broadly construed" (it has been repeatedly pointed out by myself and several others that this isn't the case, diffs and all). It's that part that's making people think you're too involved here. Volunteer Marek  05:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to strike (already replied there), but GoldenRing's closure of the AE on 15 Nov does use those words, and we need them to clarify which way they meant. If they did not mean "broadly construed" then I've already considered my comments struck and my apologies to you for that. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You are forgetting the TB that was already imposed. I can't believe this is happening. He violated the Trump ban and you are striking it, Masem? ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm only striking if GoldenRing affirms that their intention was not to have the TBAN taken as broadly construed (as per talk pages and log), in contrast to how it was closed (the AE log page). --MASEM (t) 05:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

He has. And what matters is how it's logged. Seriously, I'd appreciate a bit of good faith here - please strike. Volunteer Marek  06:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I've struck, though I would suggest adding the direct diff to where GR said what you quoted, I can't see it easily. My apologies. --MASEM (t) 06:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the explanation to me by GoldenRing. That explanation is what led me to believe it applied and why I reverted under that belief. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that explanation clearly says "it's not applicable". There's no way anyone acting in good faith could understand it otherwise. Volunteer Marek  06:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

VM, I wouldn't expect you to say anything different, but you're wrong. As others have already said, you cannot separate Moore from Trump.

Masem, why did you think I reverted twice? I added a few sentences to the lead - no revert there - VM reverted what I added, and I undid his revert. That was it - that was my only revert because according to GR's explanation about VM's TB, he was not supposed to be editing Trump related articles. To block me over 1 revert because I thought the editor was under a TB goes beyond my understanding of what's reasonable. I pinged you at the AE discussion and explained there. It's late, I'm tired, and terribly disappointed over this whole ordeal and the double standards. Goodnight. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Had pinged you there a few days ago; sometimes they don't work. ;) There's a try at cleaning up the Wikiwatcher/Light show CCI-would you mind having a look at what's there so far? I've listed what I think is wrong re: PD status. Thanks, We hope (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I assume you meant impetus when you wrote this: "But I would note this should be impedius for us to create an article on that term to document/list the broad set of cases (if not part of Me Too (hashtag))" Oddly enough, I first read that as impediment, which means obstacle. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Medeis: yes I did; I was typing fast, knew I wanted to go back and fixed, hit return too soon and then was pulled away and forgot to fix. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

--[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) : --MASEM (t)

to

--[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-size: x-small">ASEM</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) : --MASEM (t)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha! It was only a matter of time, so don't, feel alone. Some preppers say to save your lint, there are instructions on line that show how to clean lint traps, and Amazon offers a variety of lint cleaning tools. Ping me if you need more lint cleaning tips. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Small caps might be marginally better, aside: [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) -> Masem (t). --Izno (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Discord (software) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fantasy football

People Can Fly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mark Rein

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for letting me know some of the logos were non-free. Should we eliminate the logos section and put only the subsidiaries names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouHateThePlayer (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be best. --Masem (t) 14:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

But I got those images from other Wikipedia pages, how are they non-free? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-free images can only be used in a minimal way, per WP:NFC. They're okay on standalone articles about the subsidary, but they cannot be used in tables per WP:NFLISTS. --Masem (t) 06:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I removed the logos section, no point in keeping it then. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like you to clarify the "BLP angle" in this reference you reinstated for Milkshake Duck Mcewan (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The NYtimes piece (which is critical for notability) does not include Soret's apology and responses to the criticism that he faced when this was called out to him. As Soret did give a detailed interview shortly thereafter in Vice, that source is used to support the text "Soret apologized the next day and stated his views on Gamergate had since changed", which is necessary from a BLP standpoint (to give his side of the story). Without the Vice source, you don't have a source for the text above, making it a BLP violation from a sourcing standpoint. --Masem (t) 00:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is about a meme: applying the policy for ensuring that the biographies of living persons are verifiable will always be a stretch. That vice.com ref mentions the meme in passing but has no other content bearing on the article. I'm minded to delete it again. Mcewan (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The meme is directly about how it applies to people, and how others see them. It absolutely applies. (BLP is not limited to just biography articles, per that policy: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page"). --Masem (t) 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Masem, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Hello Masem: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hello Masem: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks for uploading File:Ct3 high roller.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Masem,

I am coming to you first, since you are aware of and have commented on this issue already, and User:Coffee is on vacation. User Only in death is continuing with his edit warring to restore obscene insults and unsupported defamatory BLP violations at ITN in a closed discussion, see here (as well as his restoral on Dec 25 if you want to look at the history). He has been warned on his talk page, and is aware of yours and Coffee's comments at ITN/talk on their inappropriateness. Can you do something as an admin to address this? I think a simple revert with an "I mean it" would be much simpler than the ANI process.

Thanks, μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The End of Time and World Enough and Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Masem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Please reduce the block length on the IP. It is against policy to block an IP indefinitely. Also, I see no justification for even a lengthy block given that the IP has edited for only one day. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I reduced it to one week, but clearly none of their edits showed any useful additions (eg NOTHERE). --Masem (t) 16:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTHERE is an understatement for what the IP was doing. It was just the length of the block, not the block itself. One week is good. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: can you clarify what you mean by "WP:N bore out from WP:N"? I assume there is a typo but I can't figure out what the text is supposed to say. Thanks. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And, as you predicted, some other editor has changed it from ancestor to (wait for it): "bloodline relative", which is really awkward and even less specific than ancestor--could be a 9th cousin. Must be a newbie since they obviously didn't read the note. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, it was the same editor! ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Grand Tour (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 4K and ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

VM's first diff isn't scarborough. It's an edit I self-reverted. The scarborough edit wasn't until December 31. You wouldd have to believe that I deliberately edited it 30 days into a 1 month ban. Does that make sense that I would flout the ban I had adhered to? Scarborough has had all the Klausutis material removed for years because it's a gateway to the BLP violating conspiracy. That was the intent of my edit. Your claim that it was on Dec 19 is false. Review both the article and talk page and you will see the long historey. In December alone, the conspiracy theory was removed many times. --DHeyward (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's my edits to Joe Scarborough[1]. It's a BLP removal over years and it's not just me. These are the type of edits that the conspiracy theory brings.[2]. It's why I posted the the WaPo article on the talk page in November. It's a no-brainer BLP vio if you follow the history. It's the reason Scarborough doesn't reply to them. --DHeyward (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, your statement is incorrect. I added paragraphs to Robert A. Mandell which were sourced. I removed EVERYTHING[3], not just sources as your statement implies. Another editor restored my edits because they were truthful and sourced. I have no control over that. You also are not clear that this had NOTHING to do with Scarborough. And yes, it was out of an abundance of caution that I reverted. --DHeyward (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying your self-revision is bad (it ws correct do so )but you should have at least added in the edit summary that you were doing a self-revert on a TBAN. The editor after you likely had no idea you were TBANed at that point. --Masem (t) 21:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Who cares what the next editor thought?? Everyone at AE cited you about Scarborough and you were WRONG. I got a more restrictive 30 day AP2 topic ban because you fucked up the dates/diffs and said I made a violating edit on 12/19 to Scarborough. Again, do you really think I edited Scarborough on 12/31 to flaunt the TBAN?? It's an idiotic conclusion. It was filed 4 days after the TBAN expired, about a baseless accusation, and the edits wasn't disruptive. Your part of the problem if this is what passes for a violation that requires a sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: the discussion at User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal - would you recommend starting an RfC or survey at WP:Village Pump to get a sense of how the wider community feels about the topic, or would you keep it local as we're doing now, or do you have entirely different thoughts about it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC) ^{Not needed. Atsme📞📧 03:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)}

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know, I nominated South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. for DYK. Feel free to propose a different hook or make any comments on the nomination. I thought about asking you before nominating, but January 19 is the last day to nominate it (7 days after creation) and I had time now to do it. AHeneen (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Absolutely no issue with you jumping on the DYK. I wasn't even thinking in that (in that I'm at the required QPQ which for me takes some time to find and do ). Appreciate the ping for it. --Masem (t) 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Masem. I'll begin with a quote by Atle Selberg which I often consider in the context of my own conduct - “The thing is, it's very dangerous to have a fixed idea. A person with a fixed idea will always find some way of convincing himself in the end that he is right.” That quote best explains why I routinely seek clarification when faced with different perspectives. My initial thoughts are that your response in this diff, as it relates to "several clean-up things that need to happen" as well as to the possibility that "appropriate voices have countered these claims, this needs to be included to be neutral", would be governed by the policies I mentioned in this diff. I would very much appreciate your thoughts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)  

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

Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Direct Marketing Association

Twister (1996 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Storm chaser

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Masem. At your post about requiring infoboxes your wrote "There are several topics that do need infoboxes" but the rest of that sentence talks about not needing them. Did you leave out the word "not"? If I misread things my apologies and plz feel free to remove this post. MarnetteD|Talk 02:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Masem. I have a question about File:Shiv Sena flag - svg version.svg. It looks like someone created an svg version of File:Shivsena flag.jpg. The svg is licensed as {{non-free logo}} while the jpg is licensed as {{self}}. I'm not sure whether the licensing of either file is correct, but I guess it's possible in some cases for a user-created svg based upon a free image to have its own separate copyright. If that's the case here, then it seems that the svg would fail WP:NFCC#1. If not, however, then the svg should also be the same license as the jpg, shouldn't it? In other words, if the jpg is free or PD, then the svg should be the same; similarly, if the jpg is non-free, then the svg should be the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The user jpg looks like a crop of a copyrighted image and given the user's history, I doubt they created it themselves. Thus both are problematic. Also, searching online I don't see any indication that flag is the party's logo, instead it is a tiger-based image over a geographic center (which obviously is non-free). --Masem (t) 03:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Combined FFD for both files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Separate FFD (but make sure to reference to both). --Masem (t) 04:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I was in the process of creating the FFDs when I found this archived version of the party's website which shows the flag logo being used. So, while the jpg might not be {{self}}, it might be {{PD-India}}, {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Do you think the jpg can be converted to one of these licenses? How would that affect the svg if it can? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know enough on India copyright law to know for sure, but it could possibly be. --Masem (t) 05:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's OK. Just for reference, I started separate FFDs at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 31. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Direct Marketing Association

John Morris (composer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Woman in Red

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 12:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Masem, I've noticed that you reverted my good faith edits on this article. Curious as to why you feel your the arbiter to remove my edits when they are a material fact? It is not appropriate for you to have done so and am reverting my edits as they are correct. Also, would like to remind you of the three revert rule.Jimgerbig (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jimgerbig: For film infoboxes, to avoid putting every possible actor in the box, we stick to only those that are listed on the movie poster. --Masem (t) 22:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

...or at least provide your advice regarding the NPOV issues at Trump-Russia dossier that have been challenged. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Masem, seriously? Haven't you noticed what's happening every single day? "Every politician lies" doesn't cut it anymore. Trump's different, and fact checkers have already placed him in a class by himself, not only in the number of lies he tells by the minute (as compared to the general population and to other politicians), but also the types of lies he tells. They are advanced and complex, like few others. They have never met a more dishonest public person. I can give you over 300 RS on the subject, but start with the fact checkers. Sources are easy to find on-line. Below are a few.

As far as consequences goes, ("very extreme ramifications if he actually lied"), no, he is also treated differently than anyone else. No other politician or public person has ever gotten away with the things he constantly says and does. This is our new normal. RS describe how he attacks the very idea of truth and is succeeding at getting it to crumble before our eyes. We are getting used to thinking it doesn't even exist.

How do we determine? RS and fact checkers. When they say he lies, we document it, and they do use the word "lie". There has been very prominent debate about whether reputable news sources should actually use the word, and there are differences of opinion, but it's so bad that many have now dropped all pretense and just write it.

I stopped collecting references many months ago, and things haven't gotten better. There are many more, and even more notable, references now. The article will be huge, since the only character trait more notable than his dubious relationship to truth is his narcissism. Have fun! -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I am one of those few people that hasn't drunk the proverbial Kool-aid offered by either side of the media (CNN or Fox or any others). I have very little trust from any source in regards to covering the situation today - it is far too opinionated and either shooting for anything that sticks or latching on to weaknesses; I need to have appropriate due process of law that should be followed before making me own conclusion on who's right or wrong. All that matters to me in the end for the purposes of Wikipedia is that we should be avoiding covering any of these topics to a deep degree per well established policies like NOT#NEWS and NPOV. Unfortunately people want to write for the now and cover every little event as it happens, so our coverage reflects the battle of words going on in the media (and thus the overwhelming distrust of Trump by the media because of the shear numbers of RSes against him). The media is a court of public opinion, but not a legal court, and we have avoid that sway if we are to be objective and neutral and writing for persistence. --Masem (t) 06:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that POV and can sympathize to some degree. ("It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle. )

I try to apply the NOTNEWS approach toward trivial stuff which gets little mention, but when myriad major sources cover things, it's no longer NOTNEWS, and we must not get too far behind. Whenever there is doubt (often!), I like to wait a few days before adding content. That gives time for initial lack of precision, errors, and confusion to settle down into a more accurate picture we can report.

I also find that such additions are more stable, and I can come back a month, or even years, later and my additions are still there. That's generally a good sign. Even in some of our most sacred policies, my wordings are still there. I've been here since 2003, first as an IP, like so many do, and finally with a username. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Masem. Your description of the situation is exact. My concern is that "dispassionate tone" has been lost to WP:RGW where Trump is concerned. There is also a strong hint of WP:OWN. Type "Trump-Russia" in the WP search bar and see what comes up. *lol* All those articles may require their own encyclopedia if left unchecked. Still...after all this time, not an ounce of proof has been presented to support the allegations that Trump colluded or conspired with the Russian government. Yet, our encyclopedia is chock full of articles about the allegations, and they're weighted heavily with cherry-picked negative information. Masem, we don't have just one article about the Trump-Russia dossier, we also have, Trump-Russia dossier allegations. The allegations comprise the dossier - without them there is no dossier - yet we have 2 articles on the same topic. I nominated the latter for AfD but it was closed as no-consensus. I tagged it but the tag was removed.

The articles give the dossier far too much credit and the allegations too much weight while the bulk of the content is editorializing to justify the allegations rather than focusing on the verifiable statements of fact in the sources. I have proposed edits to trim the cruft which includes deleting some of the unneccessary and very lengthy sections, but as you may have noticed, the editing environment is one of RGW. What viable options are left, keeping in mind that we are still dealing with DS, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and BLP policy? ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

when did Capcom wall MH:World the "5th" entry? additionally, even if it is. I don't believe MH should be organized by number of entry. nobody is calling MH:Generations a "spin-off" except reddit and wikipedia.204.153.155.151 (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

[4] --Masem (t) 15:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I still believe MH:Generations belongs in the main entry. until Capcom officially calls its a spin off to the main entry. Theres so little variation to the main entry titles.204.153.155.151 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi I found some articles about which generation the Switch might fit into to help resolve some issues I posted them over at Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles‎ if you wanted to take a look. Cheers! ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a note re this edit. Not sure if you realized the article was full protected or not. If that was an edit enacting a consensus on the talk page... it wasn't exactly abundantly clear... and looks a lot like an edit as an editor and not as a sysop. GMG^talk 22:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I just self-undid my undo, I see the dispute now. I thought the dispute was over the cast section in body, not infobox :P --Masem (t) 22:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Just didn't want you to get yourself in a mess. GMG^talk 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

On 21 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to "kill Quill"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Masem, starting with this edit (https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Obduction_(video_game)&oldid=782236654) you added plot details to the Obduction article that were incorrect, namely that the player wakes up the character Farley and receives further instructions directly from her. Where did you get that info? --TheFloydman (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

When you get to the Silo (assuming you don't trigger the weapon there), you initiate the wake-up process - Farley is definitely one in the chambers. By the time you return to the initial area with all the tree water going, you now have CJ asking you to start the process, but now I can't remember for certain here but that's where I think you get a message from Farley telling you to skip a step in CJ's plans as not get the bad end. It might have been(?) an instruction she left before you got to the silo warning about CJ's plan, but I'm more inclinded to say Farley explained how CJ's plan was going to fail. --Masem (t) 21:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. We were discussing it on reddit because someone thought they missed out, and we thought maybe you had inside info from a pre-release version or something. Farley doesn't wake up until one of the two main endings is triggered, and she doesn't acknowledge you at all. She just mentions in a journal that she will try to talk C.W. out of his plan. I'm sure someone will get to revising the article plot now that it's been brought to light. Thanks for your quick reply! --TheFloydman (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you consider this article an attack page? I really need your input because I'm considering a 2nd AfD as I see it as an attack page that is 100% noncompliant with NPOV policy, and hoping the following portion of the policy will justify deletion: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. There are also multiple sections unrelated to race that have taken on a racial cast. When an editor attempts to make improvements or include a different view, those edits are quickly removed. The most that has been allowed is a brief denial of a few of the many allegations. Thank you in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, but it's not policy-compliant without including more of what Trump and/or his official spokespersons stated in response to any of the specific incidents. It's one-sided coverage that can/must be fixed, so AFD is not appropriate. The single catchall section is not sufficient for this. --Masem (t) 15:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so other than taking each of the 17 sections to NPOV/N, one per week, (which would be a period of 17 weeks 😳) what is the best approach for achieving compliance with NPOV when faced with overwhelming resistance to include any of his or his spokesperson's views? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Masem, how do you know that Trump or his spokespersons said anything at all to the specific incidents, whatever they are? You realize, I hope, that your words may now be taken out of context as support for a whole range of talk page complaints by a small group of -- shall we say -- insistent editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

All I see is like two paragraphs of a lengthy article on these racial statements used to present a counter argument. While we can't force a false balance, I know broadly Trump and his representatives have spoken at length in RSes to clarify and/or dismiss these complaints, and two paragraphs is nowhere close to a proper balance based on my gut feeling on the appropriate weight based on how I've recalled the sources. I might be wrong, and I certainly can't give exact numbers, but I am pretty confident that the coverage of Trump's racial views are not as one-sided as the article currently is. It's fixable hence why AFD is not right. --Masem (t) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

All one has to do is read the lede, SPECIFICO. The TP also demonstrates that the number of what you termed as "insistent editors" is substantial, and either equals or perhaps even surpasses those who have opposing views which are in "your camp", for lack of a better term. Masem answered my initial question, not the last, so I decided to take it to NPOV/N for wider input. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that you are incorrect, Masem. And with active editors like Atsme and others on the page, you can be sure that any well-sourced and pertinent balancing views have been found and inserted. I am sure that those editors are at least as familiar as you are, from a distance, with the available well-sourced and relevant sources and opportunities for article text. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm glad you took my suggestion to go to NPOVN with your concern. Don't talk about my "camp" or any other editors' POV camps again. That's some kind of aspersion that I am motivated by POV and it's unacceptable. Many editors have asked you politely to stop doing that. It's also an insult to any Admin to do that stuff on an Admin talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Took your suggestion? What are you talking about? I must have overlooked that diff. Oh, the hypocrisy - what about your comment "energetic editors" who echo Atsme's concerns? POV camp termed a different way? I have asked you politely to stop accusing me of casting aspersions, which you have since ramped up now that I've brought attention to the NPOV issues at Racial views of Donald Trump, you have not provided one single diff that supports your claims. Others have even challenged you, having taken note of your behavior. You are now treading on the line of WP:SANCTIONGAME: Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. Please stop. I have grown weary of it. And please stop WP:bludgeoning those who disagree with you, like what you're attempting to do now with Masem, and at NPOV/N. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says when a derogatory opinion, or any opinion for that matter, about a BLP is published in multiple sources, it becomes a statement of fact? I've had to dispell that belief more than once. It's ludicrous, but if there actually is a policy that says differently I won't debate it anymore. I've never seen such a policy or guideline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? Why is Know Your Meme not a reliable source? DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a user-contributed site. Yes, some of the entries end up reviewed by the staff, but it still remains user-generated content. --Masem (t) 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how the fact that it's user-contributed automatically means it's not reliable. It's one of the few sources for memes as most traditional news sources don't usually deem it newsworthy (except for maybe Polygon) and, like Wikipedia, it is regulated and most people don't wish to vandalize it with inaccurate information. See also: Wikipedia:Assume good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuyonYouTube (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:UGC. And also, we only try to include memes reported in more mainstream coverage, as we are also not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Masem (t) 14:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but adding to a pre-existing article that's sole purpose is to list out these things isn't the same as making a whole article on it. Furthermore, the link you gave me does not explain why user-generated sources are unacceptable. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

On that page, at the top of the section, it describes the problem: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. --Masem (t) 14:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Touche. But mass-edited and collaborated articles are not the same thing as a blog operated by a single person. With a large group (such as Wikipedia or Know Your Meme or places like that), any inaccurate or biased information can (and usually will) be corrected or removed to make the article more reliable. With a one-man thing, any bias and false information will continue to be on said thing and cannot later be corrected. That's the great thing about wikis. Anyone can add information, and anyone can fact check and do corrections. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)