Jump to content

User talk:Masem: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 71.135.171.193 (talk) to last version by Masem
Undid revision 543429490 by Izno (talk)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box collapsible|auto=yes}}
{{archive box collapsible|auto=yes}}

==VIKIPEDIA BADGE==

I am a feminized Eurotoxin. I love to write propaganda I learned from my high school textbooks on Wikipedia. I do it not because I'm patriotic. I do it because I don't have a fucking mind of my own. I was owned by my parents, and now I'm owned by my company, who is owned by my government. I've lost all ability to think for myself. That's why I'm proudest of my Vikipedia Badge. -- s/ Masem Nauseum


== Magic Characters AfDs ==
== Magic Characters AfDs ==

Revision as of 14:28, 11 March 2013

Template:Archive box collapsible

VIKIPEDIA BADGE

I am a feminized Eurotoxin. I love to write propaganda I learned from my high school textbooks on Wikipedia. I do it not because I'm patriotic. I do it because I don't have a fucking mind of my own. I was owned by my parents, and now I'm owned by my company, who is owned by my government. I've lost all ability to think for myself. That's why I'm proudest of my Vikipedia Badge. -- s/ Masem Nauseum

Magic Characters AfDs

In theory, you'd be right that they should all be bundled and nominated at once. However, in the last two multi-noms I've had, disgruntled users complained that there was too much shoved into AfD. So I nominated four in four separate AfDs, and if there's consensus to delete those four, I'll nominate the rest in a week. Most of the notable characters (and some of the ones that don't) already have articles, btw pbp 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck-It Ralph

For what it's worth, Kurzon (talk · contribs) has now been reported to WP:ANEW for now reaching 4RR. --McDoobAU93 20:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI, Kurzon has now been blocked by Bbb23 for 24 hours. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

As someone who tends to interpret NFCC more narrowly than I do, I'd appreciate your opinion on this FFD close and this attempt at discussion. I've been considering a DRV, but don't want to bother if it would be a waste of time. postdlf (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bioshock-infinite-logo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ingram's image

The picture on Daniel Ingram's article has been changed, and you are the uploader of the Everfree Northwest image that used to be there (I was at that con, by the way.) I'll get back to you. dogman15 (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume, based on the upload, that he has an ORTS ticket in progress for the image, which would then be fine. The free one I took, its fine on commons as is. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning on going to the next Everfree Northwest? dogman15 (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (comic book) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Marvel
The Dig (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Leilani Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

NFCC bot

Do you want to help me putting together the functionality of the bot we were discussing last month? My reading of this discussion is that the bot should do the following:

  • tag 10c violating files so that they end up in a maintenance category for editors to review ({{Non-free review}} maybe?)
  • place a message at the talk page of the original uploader
  • place a template like {{NFCC issue note}} on the article

Am I seeing this right? I plan to make a proposal at VPR and if that is supported by the community, make a request at BOTREQ so that someone can actually write that bot. Although I've given up enforcing NFCC (and pretty much editing Wikipedia) I am still of the opinion that something should be done. If you could confirm or deny that my reading of the expected bot functionality is correct, that would be appreciated, as then I could prepare a proposal at VPR so that the community can decide on whether they want to have such a bot or not. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. I think the order needs to be:
  • Bot checks the file page of an image for each article that the software knows it is being used on. This should try to follow redirects, as well as, if possible, accept accent-less or slight differences that would be reasonable "mistakes" as long as it's clear. (This would be beneficial but not a deal breaker if it can't do that)
  • If the text on the file page has no mention of the article that the image is being used on, the image should be tagged about the #10c concern, as well as messages left on the talk page of the article where the image is in question and the uploader.
    • The addition of the #10c messsage should place the image in a maintenance category, which should include an internal "date added" mechanism, as to tell when 7 days have gone by.
    • The #10c message should explain how to remedy the situation and that the template can be removed if the scenario is fixed, which would also then remove the image from the category.
The bot will not delete images; the only way an image can be deleted is if a human review of the file through the maintenance category removes the only use of that image, and then subsequently the image will be tagged as an orphan by another bot and another 7 days would pass for it to be deleted.
The human admins of the #10c problem list can review the file page to determine if the situation has been resolves (on which they can remove the #10c), attempt to correct it themselves or otherwise remove the image from the problem article. They are not to make any other judgement on other NFCC problems at this time, though outside of the process they are free to nominate for NFCR or other review processes, but through the category they can only enforce #10c. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this at least provides me with some ideas on how this bot should work. I don't know exactly when I will get around to preparing the Village pump proposal text. Maybe I will get around to preparing a proposal text in my userspace next weekend if things go well or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for your reply. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider doing this as a Bot Request with a VPP pointer to that bot request. That is, we'd be coming in with "We would like a bot with these features which should be non-controversial, but..." and thus have those at VPP (and NFCC and other pages) offer any other suggestions at the same time bot programmers can say "that's possible -- that's not -- that is...". --MASEM (t) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I planned to make a proposal at the village pump first is that I expect the people at BOTREQ to ask for a prior consensus for such a bot. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, that's fine then. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I drafted a template which the bot could use, currently located at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:File page NFCC concerns tag. Let me know if there is anything you think needs tweaking, fixing etc. Then I can go on with preparing the village pump proposal. For example you mentioned that the template should give advice on how to fix the issues (if possible). Something like Please add a valid non-free use rationale if possible or discuss the issues at WP:NFCR? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I realized that some features you mentioned are still missing from the template. I need to figure out how to implement the dated categorization mechanism.... -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at {{Di-orphaned fair use}} for date sorting/handling. Also, I would recommend adding in small text in the template box something like "Please note that a rationale might already exist but may not match the article name due to typos or complex page-move operations. If possible, you may correct the rationale's article name and safely remove this warning." Doesn't have to be that language but something along those lines to suggest that it might be a small trivial error easily fixed. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a date sorting mechanism sorting by month and year (but not day, though that could be changed if desired). Also added the message as you suggested. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find myself not working much on this lately. However, what I have so far can be seen at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC bot. Just so that you know I try to use your feedback, but the process for developing it is currently slow, so it may take some time until it is ready. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

Please help by voting KEEP the Clementine (The Walking Dead) article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementine (The Walking Dead)... I am working hard on that article... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 07:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop haranguing me on my talk page

Talk about the AFD on the AFD page. Just LEAVE ME ALONE. I'm sick of you harassing me. If you have any complaint about my actions, take it to WP:ANI. Barsoomian (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Just wanted to let you know, Im going to revert the revert you did on Sneakers (1992 film) and address the grammar points you made. You were right, it was my bad, I forgot to proof read my changes. Going to do so now. :) MisterShiney ✉ 16:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freemium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page App Store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Consensus formation

Hi Masem. I noticed the comment you made here about how FFD (files for deletion) discussions are often poorly attended. That and a similar trend at CfD (category discussions) is part of the reason I stopped participating there (a bit of a vicious circle in some sense, as the only way to reverse such a trend is to participate and encourage others to participate). The reason I've mentioned this is that I was recently reminded of the discussions relating to this non-free image (of Melford Stevenson: the discussions are here and here). You can see that at the end of that I was a bit perplexed that such discussions get very few participants. At the time, I thought an FFD discussion would form a consensus, but as you can see it was closed as 'no consensus'. Given that you said "our NFC policy [...] requires timed action on files that don't meet the NFCC", should any NFC discussions be closed as no consensus, or should they be relisted until consensus is clear? Or does a 'no consensus' to delete equate to a 'consensus' that the NFCC is being met? The other thing I wanted to ask was about point (3) that I made in that FFD thread (in the 01:55, 17 September 2012 comment). There are many, many ODNB articles that have images where no free images are available for our equivalent article. Does the result of that FFD discussion mean that similar non-free rationales can be used for images for those articles? I don't think they can, but surely either they all have non-free images or none of them do. Which is it? Anyway, I realise this should be raised somewhere where wider discussion can take place, but wanted to see first what you thought of this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say all FFDs must close keep or delete. If there is a true counter arguments both set in policy, and the admin can't determine that, a "no consensus" is fine there, as that at least implies there's a likelihood for the image to have a valid use. But when you get a "delete per policy" (which is correct in that statement) and no policy-based arguments on the other side, it's extremely hard to consider a "no consensus" closure as proper given we are on a free content mission.
FFD participation is right now likely low due to the fact that only the uploader and the file page are notified. As many of WP's earlier contributors have moved on, this means the FFD is falling on deaf ears. It would make sense to add a requirement to notify all talk pages of articles where the image is used to alert them to the discussion. (Doesn't help with orphaned files but those regularly aren't a problem).
As to the ODNB issue: I don't think it can easily be answered as being all one way or all another. It doesn't appear all images at ODNB are necessarily from press agencies (as best I can tell) so the NFCC#2 application will vary. And that's something that we have to accept with our NFCC policy - given what published NFC media may be out there, we may not have consistent use of NFC media within a class of articles; each article resolved case-by-case. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense for people to participate in FFD for its own sake. It would also help to separate out the 'obvious' nominations from the ones that actually need discussion. Who wants to scroll past pages of orphaned images nominations to try and find ones where there is real discussion going on? I also had the impression that XfD discussions bring in other people to give fresh views. Article-the-image-is-used-in notification is all very well, but may not bring in any new views - it can feel very much like continuing the same discussion with the same people if you've already raised the point on the article talk page before going to FFD. As far as press agencies goes, I think you've misunderstood the history of the image, which I had thought I had laid out very clearly. It was distributed in 1970 by a press agency, but what was never clear was who ultimately then and now hold/held the rights to the image. Merely distributing an image is not the same as having the rights to an image. My view is that if you can't identify the rights holder, you can't properly assess non-free use and shouldn't claim that use. This is the basic problem with trying to wind the clock back to a copy of the image earlier in its history, you can't really do that. The eBay copy used here may have been from 1970, but the rights assessment should be based on the current rights holder (which isn't a press agency, the image was purchased by the NPG in 1996). And there will be lots of NPG images used in the ODNB that could potentially be used under NFCC in the same way as this one (typically mid-20th century establishment figures where not many portraits exist, and no free ones are available). I don't think they should be, so I'm not doing this for articles where I'm aware of such images and have been unable to find free images, but there is a potential here for overuse of such images. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see what you're getting it, but that said, I don't think "if you can't identify the rights holder, you can't properly assess non-free use and shouldn't claim that use" is our line here. It is definitely the case that if you can't reasonably be sure that a file is free in the PD or under CC-BY type license, we can't use it as a free image. However, for non-free, I don't think our sourcing is as strict. We need to be able to show some prior publication, and we may be unsure where that image originated from ("photographer unknown" is common), so we do want that type of source. If more information about the photo comes to light to show that it came from a press agency, then we'll have to talk about replacing it then, but that's only until we have that new information. We do expect that a best effort is made to track down the origin of the photo, but likely if something is going to be non-free with the partial source information, it will remain non-free when the actual source is found, and at worse it might actually become free (yay). But, that's my read on the issue, and might be worth bringing up elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can't expect all details to be known, but sometimes you find out more about an image if you actually make the effort to contact the curators or holders of an image, rather than just taking a copy, claiming fair-use and hoping for the best. It would sometimes be more courteous and more informative to contact the holder of an image, but the default attitude seems to be (with admittedly some justification) that if you contact them they will object to fair-use of the image. But in some cases I think you might be surprised, and some of the less commercial image archives/libraries/musuems/galleries might be willing to work with those wanting to use images for articles (you can end up being told of other archives that might have an image that is suitable for use on Wikipedia). You will have seen some of these pages before, but have a look at these pages about image rights assessments and clearances: Library of Congress, US National Portrait Gallery, UK National Portrait Gallery, Getty Images. The LoC is a great resource for PD images, but they make clear that image rights assessment still has to be done by the end user. Getty, as a commercial entity, take a different approach, but even there you have the Hulton Archive, which has a fascinating history. What a lot of people sometimes don't realise is that collections like these contain large amounts of unpublished material that was just never used at the time the photographs were taken. Anyway, that's getting a bit off topic now, but the number and range of historical image collections out there is bewildering at times (I think there is a list somewhere, but even that doesn't cover everything). Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wii U - Upscaling

I realize you're probably watching the conversation, but I just wanted to make sure you're aware - in your last post, what you described is actually the exact opposite of what's going on. Nintendo says it doesn't upscale, only tech websites allude to it. So, it's not really a marketing/buzzword" situation - if anything, it'd be Nintendo short-changing itself. But that seems weird, which makes me question the tech sites. Anyways, regardless, I thought that may alter your stance on it.

On another note, thanks for your input on the topic in general. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Steam authentication

Hi, please take a look at the discussion I started here regarding Steamworks/Steam Authentication if you can. Thanks.

Talk:List of games using Steam authentication#Steamworks/Steam authentication

--CoolingGibbon (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (comic book)

Mifter (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

would be?

hi Mausam need your opinion ,this is case,i know there are logos copy rigth for example,discovery because has a globe,so i delete the goble and i drew a circle ,for me that image is free and i donated to wikipedia commons,but is nominated Deletion ,because is nor real logo ,we need real logos? here link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casi_discovery_channel_2012_3.png


--EEIM (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC) copy violo? File:F1 red-black.png --EEIM (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tv.com ELN

Hi, Masem. I'm contacting you because you commented at the Tv.com TFD, which I decided to withdraw for the moment. I subsequently made a report about Tv.com at WP:ELN. Please feel free to comment at the new discussion: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8th Gen. video game systems

Please stop deleting my edits, thet are accurate and of 8th generation. User:Seqqis(User talk:Seqqis) 00:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I'm not sufficiently on top of the MMA issue to see how it differs, or not from this situation, but in view of your comment at ANI, I thought you might be interested in the next steps.

Notoriety

The mysteriously ungrammatical Drmies had some idea that you were going to write something. Uncle G (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Sandy Hook

I knew you were concerned about a lack of clarity when dealing with these issues, but they are so rare, and each one is so unique, it is hard to codify that, hence my opinions at WP:AN. I think that everyone of the experienced editors and admin have really stepped up to the plate and done exceptionally well, particularly you. There is a solid yet flexible system that has been consistent now since the start, and that consistency is what makes it fair. It keeps you on your toes, that is certain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Survivor (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image use question

Hi Masem. If you have a chance, can you take a look at the image discussion here? Specifically, the very top paragraph and then very last two paragraphs. I'm just curious if I should reduce the resolution of the image in question any more, or if there's a standard procedure for these types of situations with really old video game images. Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG vs SNG

Somewhere in the epic WP:FICT battles, we had a survey question about whether an article needed to meet the GNG and the relevant SNG or not. My memory is that the community was remarkably divided. I can't find it though. Got a pointer to it anywhere?—Kww(talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise; 27% only favored that position and my impression of late is that practice is that it is definitely "gng OR sng" (per the wording at the top of WP:N) --MASEM (t) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (film character)

Last September you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character). Please now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) (2nd nomination). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers images

In case you haven't noticed, I put File:Sam Diane I Do Adieu Wedding.jpg and File:Sam Diane Cheers finale.jpg for review. You can comment on use of them in WP:NFR. --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal 2

Hi there. Do you plan on taking Portal 2 to WP:FAC. I'm pretty sure the article is ready for the challenge. Plant's Strider (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is content-wise ready but absolutely needs a copyedit, which I have put in at the LoCEs as a request. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batman: Arkham City/archive1

Hi Masem, I put up Arkham City for FAC but apparently hard work and the article being ready isn't enough, you can only have one FAC at a time to make sure your volunteering becomes that slightly more irritating. I need a co-nominator for the Arkham City nom to keep it open, the user says you need to be able to deal with problem but you don't, I'll handle all that, and as a significant contributor to teh article you're qualified to nominate it. If you don't want to that's fine, just let me know and I will probably ask GrappleX, I went to you first because I know you tend to be active more often. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly offer, but I would be just a bit worried on edit counts if SandyG is counting towards that (I think I did most of my editing on that prior to release). Based on what Sandy said at the FAC, I would try Grapple first and if they can't I can certainly jump in. (I have played the game, and certainly wouldn't have a big problem helping). --MASEM (t) 20:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K, thanks, I'll contact Grapple and see what he says. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steam games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Steam_games

Hi there,

Is there any chance you could make a pastebin of the latest revision of this page before it was deleted? I found the page very useful when I devised puzzles for my clients in the past and, if possible, I would like a backup copy of the page. This was literally the only easily readable full list of games on steam on the internet.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.43.136 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it at [1]. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.43.136 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Adam Lanza protection

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Ahnoneemoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Providing text of deleted article to offsite location

Happy holidays, Masem. Hope you are doing well. Regarding your thread at AN, there's a non-WMF wiki on the internet that has a tool that can help. You enter the name of a Wikipedia article and press the button and it automatically copies the article to the other wiki. It also copies the article's history to the other wiki's talk page. It's the only site that I know of that is in total compliance with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL licenses that we require for reuse. A handful of well-respected admins here at enwp know about it and have provided deleted articles using the tool. I'm specifically not mentioning the site because the operators were accused of spamming the site here a couple of years ago. If you specifically ask for the link, I'll provide it. Best regards. 64.40.54.249 (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Festivus

Happy Festivus!
Here's wishing you a happy Festivus!
May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength,
may your list of Grievances be short,
and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles.
—Torchiest talkedits 14:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Merry Christmas Masem Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are still 'minding the shop' - Merry Christmas, Masem!

Greetings! Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.


Hi!
 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|
gives you this puppy!
Puppies promote WikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl (your choice) has made your day better.
Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever.

Merry Christmas and a happy 2013
05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your example and guidance during 2012 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Holiday wishes!
Masem, I wish you excellent holidays and a glorious 2013!

I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :)


  • Salvidrim!, signing off on my best year yet, thanks in no small part to y'all!

Article Improve

Hi, it's been sometime since my posting on The Fugitive talk page. I outlined a preliminary set of improvements that the article could use. So far, there hasn't been any responses or objections. Can I take that route now of making small occasional edits every once in awhile to keenly improve the readability of the page? ... If someone has an issue, I'm sure they'll voice their opinions, and a discussion can be made on the talk page. I've been patient and waited awhile. I'm not planning on making bold reverts in one shot anymore. Only small periodic improvements. I don't think anyone has a protest against that. Moovi (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been only 24hr. Given that its the holiday season, it may take time for people to respond. As there is no deadline, I'd wait a week and if there's any lack of response, you'd be okay to make the series of small edits you are talking about. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, thank you. Moovi (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AADD and SPA

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see also the related but distinct discussion at Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account#Tagging IPs. I firmly believe that my argument is valid, as evidenced by Barsoomian's no-contest-response. Alas, valid arguments rarely ever prevail. In the end, it's just a powerplay for the roleplayers. You know what, don't even bother commenting there. I don't believe you'd come up with anything that even acknowledges my argument, let alone actually refutes it. It's just WP:IDHT and shut up IP, we do what we want and if it makes no sense, go to hell if you care. --20:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.241.177 (talk)

Sandy Hook 2, thank you

Hi Masem, I just want to say that I think you've been in the right on pretty much every stance you've taken on the talk page. I've mainly been trying to keep things neutral, relevant, and factual. I have to admit, your comments on the timing of information have been spot on. Keep up the great work and thank you for your diligence!--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Wikinews won't accept it, so transwiking is a non-starter (and it was supported by only two or three of the roughly fifty editors who commented - it would need a really compelling argument to override the sentiments of the community (and it lacks that). NOT#NEWS is asserted a couple times, but not really argued (presumably because there's no argument to make). I'm not sure what you're looking for, it's pretty straightforward. WilyD 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

WP:Possibly_unfree_files#December_27

Regarding File:Certs breathmint 2005 package.jpg. Discussion quagmire. Help needed. --Lexein (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image request (VAC)

Do you have a Steam account which is VAC banned account? I require screenshots for Valve Anti-Cheat.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't. (Trust me, I would definitely not want my account VAC-banned with how many games I have on it :) --MASEM (t) 22:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q

Masem, I'm thinking about closing an old RfC. Please look at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC_on_Creative_professionals, and your comment from 07:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC). Are you sure that, where you said "However, that itself is a highly objective qualifier", you meant "objective"? Please note it there, if necessary. If I'm wrong, blame a crying baby and a really nice cocktail right after the stopping of the crying. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you're right. Should be "subjective" and noted it there. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for commenting, though I think the nomination has unfortunately floundered. I guess we'll just have to enjoy Jan 18 without a TFA. :/ Hope you've had a good start to the new year. Ruby 2010/2013 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inherited notability

Good evening. In regards to your response on inherited notability over at the wikimma project. If this goes against wikipedia then how to you account for WP:NMMA. That guideline supports the idea that fighters inherit notability when fighting in certain organizations. Then you have a link to that trash essay. Where the only important thing is " Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. ". Trust me. I disagree with the entire premise of a tier system. It just seems impossible to present enough refs at afds to keep notable fighters from being deleted. I can find 5-10 quality refs and its not good enough. Yet a nightmare before christmas gameboy game has a wikipedia page. I am just trying to play on their level. If it goes against wikipedia why do you allow it to continue to fester? There are also editors citing WP:NMMA as a reason to delete an article. Yet they admit that it passes WP:GNG. It is very frustrating. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, what NMMA does is provide criteria (not classification) where by meeting that criteria, sources are likely to exist or will exist to make an encyclopedic article and thus we presume notability. Given the two points there revolve around championships and winning them, this is a completely reasonable assumption - winning a major MMA tourney is certainly something that will be reported on and give depth to the fighter. But just participating is not sufficient, as what the proposed tier system does. You can't guaranty sources about the fighter himself just because you can report the results of matches they've been in.
As for the second point, it should be the case that meeting NMMA should be an alternate way of showing notability than the GNG, and it is not required to show that the GNG is met (this is iterated early on at WP:N). It would be helpful to see what AFDs where this argument was made. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for now this is the only one I can find. The person did change their delete vote to a keep after the fact. But the fact that I actually had to reason with them is troubling. Nearly every mma afd is a result of the conimator claiming they fail WP:NMMA when they clearly pass. Please see Antonio Mckeees second afd for an example. I will try to find the other AFD where i saw the person claim NMMA over GNG, but I have been to ALOT of mma afds over the weekend. I've been hustling to save these guys against people indescriminantly trying to delete them. I can bring out a wheelbarrow full of quality refs and people will still say Fails WP:NMMA. For example. look at the plethora of WP:SOURCES at MIke Ricci's afd. His afd being closed as a no consensus is a slap in the face of common sense and especially WP:SOURCES.

I do get the thing about being presumed notable if you are the champ. But then you have people saying? "oh well, he(papy Abedi) fought in Shooto Finland so he passes WP:NMMA because Shooto is considered "top tier". Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Papi, and I do think it was a miracle he was kept based on the currrent situation, and this example is a prime example of what is wrong with MMA on wikipedia. Thanks for listening to my rant. Oh, If you would like a tad more insight into what these mma guys are having to deal with at AFD's please read my gripe on MBisanz' wikitalk

I was also curious at what point can someeone step in and say that WP:MMANOT/tier is a failed proposal? Cuz people go to WP:NMMA and see the link to the different tiers and then take that as the gospel PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you are mentioned in a convo here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Inherited_Notability_in_MMA PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Walking Dead (2012 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mad Man (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Sidenote: I tried to fix the blue box containing everything below it but I couldn't figure out how.

I know you monitor Assassins Creed 3 so I wanted to ask, do you agree or disagree with my change to the opening? I only ask because if people are going to be fighting over it, well that's why I'm semi-retired. The year is a basic thing that should be in there, its in the MOS and I think the use of "historical" not only doesn't make much sense (What is historical in this context? Something that happened last week?, it's not the same as saying Cyberpunk which clearly defines a setting), and most GA and FA game articles tend to open with year/genre, where setting would be described alongside the plot. As for the genre itself, that just seemed like a logical reorganisation. I've never heard of anything described as an "Action adventure open world stealth game", it's "open world action adventure stealth game". If you think I'm right and they're gonna keep bitching then I'll change the other games to remove that excuse, if not I'll leave them to their own devices. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For video games, our primary genres are based on gameplay and not setting, so yes, removing "historical fiction" from that line is right. We can say it is historical in connection to the plot, but its not a gameplay genre. As for the others, I would say it is "an action adventure game (primary genre) with stealth and parkour elements taking place in an open world" instead of trying to load 3 genre statements back to back. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, ill take a look at AC3 in a couple of minutes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had a pass, feel free to let me know what you think Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter (4th Quarter 2012)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

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

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new discussion in the 8th gen talkpage.

And you are invited to participate. -Kai445 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

History of Afd

DYK for The Stanley Parable

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (comic book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marvel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre List for Binding of Isaac is Incorrect

In the Binding of Isaac wikipedia article, "Roguelike" is incorrectly listed as one of the genre's that the game falls under (along side Action Adventure and Dungeon Crawl). I edited and fixed this, however you reverted my edit claiming that a "Roguelike doesn't require tile-based movement." This is most certainly false. A roguelike game has 4 primary definitive aspects that make it a roguelike: Perma-Death, Randomly Generated Levels, GRID/TILE-BASED MOVEMENT, AND TURN-BASED GAMEPLAY. While most roguelikes have many other similarities between them, these are majorly agreed upon as the "minimum" requirements for a game to technically be a roguelike. As you can see, Binding of Isaac lacks 2 of these very important requirements.

Many non-roguelike games have perma-death AND randomly generated levels, as these two traits are VERY commonly found in PLENTY of other games and RPG's (such as hardcore mode in Diablo or Minecraft), however NONE of these other games are EVEN ARGUABLY considered roguelikes by ANYONE serious and honest about the subject (such as the vast majority of roguelike players and developers), and rightfully so (although Diablo and Minecraft are both well known to be INSPIRED by roguelikes). These games may have aspects TAKEN from roguelikes, but they themselves are technically NOT roguelikes (and virtually ALL roguelike players and roguelike-familiar game developers agree).

CITATION (all taken from the front page google search of the term "roguelike" and "roguelike game"): [1] [2] [3]

This is NOT even seriously debated, it's factual. The opinion may be popular among many newbies to roguelikes, however, it is NOT true, despite it's unfortunate above-average popularity recently among laymen (probably due to misleading yet credible articles like this one). Having only 2 aspects of the genre, especially 2 that are very commonly found in other DIFFERENT genres, is undoubtedly NOT enough for the game to be seriously considered a part of that genre (as a simple look at all other games in similar (or in this case, the EXACT SAME) positions show example of).

The game may have roguelike aspects, but it is most definitely NOT a roguelike. I strongly urge you to change this article accordingly to reduce confusion and incorrectness and maintain objective correctness and remain unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.75.167 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that even the creator himself calls it a roguelike [2], no, this is correct. Remember, WP is not a source for itself. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've read through that entire article and nowhere does he call Isaac a roguelike. He says it's "mixed it with a roguelike", and that he "wanted to make a roguelike game", and most notably that he "wanted to combine the roguelike formula with some kind of real-time experience", which to me sounds like he acknowledges the fact it's not a roguelike, but rather "uses the roguelike formula" and shares some roguelike elements.

Even if he DID claim it as a roguelike, he'd just be wrong, and it's definitely not sufficient proof to base a statement in a Wikipedia page on it, correct??

If randomly generated levels and perma-death were enough to make a game a roguelike, MANY games that are obviously NOT considered roguelikes would be labled as roguelikes right now, and the number of games in the genre would be threefold what it is currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.75.167 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP is not a reliable source for itself, so just because the roguelike page may say it "must have" tile-based movement, if the creator of the game and several other journalists still call it a roguelike, that probably means our page on WP is wrong, or at least too strongly worded. The fact you're suggesting the developer of the game is wrong in what he is calling it is a good sign that your idea is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help Requested for Jellyvision Games Page

Hello, this is a request from Jellyvision Games, the makers of YOU DON'T KNOW JACK. We are new to Wikipedia and kindly request your help. We notice you have created much of the content for the jellyvision page. Something that is out of date is that the company actually split in two as is noted in text but not reflected in the page: Jellyvision Games and Jellyvision Lab. We would kindly ask that a new page be created for Jellyvision Games (you will note that I made this change to the credits for the You Don't Know Jack (Facebook game) page but that it points to nowhere) and that appropriate edits to titles and links be made. Jellyvision Inc games assets are now part of Jellyvision Games. The current Jellyvision Inc page can simple explain the change and refer users to new page. Below, I pulled some copy you can use as you wish or not for page creation - it is just provided to be helpful. We would also ask if it is possible to make any needed edits to the various pages created for YOU DON'T KNOW JACK including You Don't Know Jack (video game series), You Don't Know Jack (Facebook game), You Don't Know Jack (2011 video game) and You Don't Know Jack (game show). Finally, may we request that our brand name be spelled in all caps or shortened to YDKJ? Thank you for your assistance in advance and we hope we have made this request correctly.

---

"Jellyvision Games, Inc.

Type Private Industry Video Games Founded 2008 Headquarters Chicago, Illinois Key people Harry Gottlieb, Mike Bilder, Steve Heinrich, Allard Laban, Evan Jacover, Tom Gottlieb Employees 20+ Website JellyvisionGames.com

Jellyvision Games is a Chicago-based video game developer and publisher of social and mobile video games and is best known for the interactive trivia franchise YOU DON’T KNOW JACK®.

The company was previously incorporated as Jellyvision Inc. until the formal separation of the games development unit from interactive video advertising division, Jellyvision Labs. The company was reincorporated as Jellyvision Games, Inc. in December of 2011.

2012 marked a transition for Jellyvision Games into the social gaming space. In May 2012, YOU DON’T KNOW JACK on Facebook was launched to critical acclaim, winning SPIKE TV Video Game Awards “Social Game of the Year” as well as being named to Kotaku’s Top 12 Games on Facebook.

In December 2012, a cross-platform version of YDKJ was launched for mobile starting with iOS and an Android version is planned for early 2013.

HISTORY Both as part of former parent Jellyvision and as a separate entity, Jellyvision Games has a strong history of innovation. When YOU DON’T KNOW JACK first launched in 1995, it was the first game to truly immerse the user into a fully interactive game show experience, making players feel like the game’s host was talking directly to them. The company also created Who Wants To Be A Millionaire for PC, which at the time was the fastest-selling PC game in history, and the TV game show Smush, which aired on the USA Network.

Founded by Harry Gottlieb in 1989, Jellyvsion was originally named "Learn Television;" it produced a number of edutainment titles, such as "That's A Fact, Jack!", before branching out into pure entertainment multimedia. At that point, the company name was changed to "Burnt Jellyvision" (a form of their original name, as would be used in a YOU DON’T KNOW JACK 'Gibberish' Question), but the company quickly decided to just use "Jellyvision."

With That’s a Fact, Jack! in development, Jellyvision decided to test the waters of mainstream interactive entertainment by beginning a partnership with Berkeley Systems and developing the game YOU DON’T KNOW JACK.

Released in the fall of 1995, YOU DON’T KNOW JACK became an instant bestseller and redefined the trivia game market for adults with its direct-response interactivity and snarky fusion of high culture and pop culture. Today, with over 5 million units sold, more than $100 million in revenue, distribution in five countries and over 50 major industry awards, YDKJ is one of the most successful gaming franchises ever.

In 1999, Jellyvision brought a virtual Regis Philbin to life by designing and developing the original Who Wants To Be A Millionaire CD-ROM for Disney Interactive.

In 2001, Jellyvision partnered with Microsoft to develop Outsmart®, the flagship game show for www.zone.com. Outsmart pits players in head-to-head action against their favorite celebrities. They also partnered with Michael Davies, the executive producer who imported and developed the TV show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, to launch a television show based on Jellyvision's latest game invention, Smush. Smush launched in early 2001 on the USA Network and Jellyvision still owns the trademark for the property.

In 2007, the company released a free “Webshow” on the site youdon’tknowjack.com. There were weekly episodes featuring host Cookie Masterson and his intern, Nate. Additionally, there was a Daily DisOrDat which featured a DisOrDat question built around a piece of current events news. These appeared four days a week, Mondays-Thursdays, with the full 7-question YOU DON’T KNOW JACK episode appearing on Fridays. The Webshow lasted about a year and a half.

In 2011, Jellyvision Games launched YOU DON’T KNOW JACK on all major console platforms through publisher THQ, including Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii, Nintendo DS and DSi, and PC. A single-player version of YDKJ was launched later in that year as well for Roku 2."

Marcblumer (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look at fixing some of these elements. Just as a note on the branding, while our trademark style doesn't allow all caps names (eg we refer to the band KISS as "Kiss", so we'd have to refer to "YOU DON'T KNOW JACK?" as "You Don't Know Jack?" -- but I can say that if you want the initialism as the branding, we can certainly establish the "YDKJ?" as the title for the series/games outside of the initial title and lead paragraph - we allow allcap initialisms.
What would help as well is any references to any third-party sources that discuss the split or current focus of Jellyvision Games. I think I've got a few from the other YDKJ articles, but any more that you can provide would be good. Note that I haven't looked at assessing it but depending on this, I may not be able to split off Jellyvision Games separately, but I can certainly make a new section for that , create the appropriate redirects so that that name is searchable, etc. Eg it would be treated as a separate section in the article.
And one last suggestion - I would love to be able to illustrate these articles more. Understandable things like cover art and screenshots are under your copyright and our use is limited by non-free terms, but if you want to consider releasing some of these elements to the Creative Commons as to illustrate your company or game articles better, that's an option I leave open to you. But another suggestion would be to have any key personnel photos - eg Tom Gottlieb since he's the voice of Cookie, but of course any upper staffers, writers, etc. There's probably less of a problem for yourselves in considering releasing these as Creative Commons works. This is all up to you if you would like to do this and certainly isn't a major impact on the articles in question, and if so, I can guide you through a few easy steps (primarily what you see at WP:CONSENT) to do that. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masem - Thank you so much. You have been incredibly helpful and generous. I was unaware of the editorial restriction of all caps so of course "You don't know jack" is fine. Both our company and our fans have shortened to YDKJ for years so that is always fine to use after first reference.

Here are a couple sources for you as requested. This is a source to site for Jellyvision Labs leaving Jellyvision Inc. in 2004. One thing I think I was not clear enough about is that the history went as follows: Jellyvision Labs split off in 2004. That left Jellyvision Inc. as a company that was primarly the holder of all the gaming IP rights even though the games work was dormant. In 2008, Jellyvision Inc. began game development anew with the hiring of Mike Bilder Source for Mike hiring and reboot. Jellyvision Inc. was then reincorporated as Jellyvision Games. I'd be very grateful if my communication error could be cleaned up in the sentence "In 2008, as the popularity of networked consoles and mobile devices became popular, Jellyvision Labs opted to spin out a games division, naming it Jellyvision Games, LLC, headed by Mike Bilder" since Jellyvision Inc. became Jellyvision Games.

This article is probably our best source to cite regarding the pivot away from console and into social and mobile games.

I would be happy to provide art. Can you point me to a link on how to do so?

Again, I am grateful for the help.

Marcblumer (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axe Cop

I removed the "Webcomics" category because it's already in the subcategory "American webcomics". It doesn't need to be in both a category and a sub-category of the same category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I didn't catch that it was subcatted like that. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Articles for deletion's talk page.
Message added 19:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I've been away last week - I've answered that thread. Diego (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Hi Masem!

Thanks for answering my question on the copyright questions page. The other editor was bit rude to me when I asked him/her. But I have two further questions:

1. What if the book is free? Like it is a freely distributed book? Or what if I made a virtual rendering?

2. What if I took my same pictures and made them low resolution? I found a note:

Can I just use a low-res picture of the covers?

Thanks, Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Free as in speech and free as in beer are two separate aspects. A zero-cost book does not mean it is not copyrighted, so yes, we would still consider the cover as a non-free image.
Now, assuming the book has its own article, we do allow one to use the cover art as a means of identifying the book on the page about the article about the book (see WP:NFCI#1), but nowhere else unless there is significant discussion about the image/cover itself (sourced to reliable sources). The template for book cover would be appropriate to add - in addition to your free license for the photograph, and would still need to add a non-free rationale template to explain the use of the cover image as outlined at WP:NFC. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem,

Ok, I think I did it right. Could you take a look at the following files to see if I need to do anything else?

  • File:Holy Bible Recovery Version.jpg
  • File:Normal Christian Life by Tyndale.jpg
  • File:The Economy of God by LSM.jpg

By the way, what's your favorite game?

Thanks for the help, Sosthenes12 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Everything seems to be in order with those as best as I can tell. As for favorite game, I got several but tend towards Rock Band + its sequels. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to add the "|image has rationale=yes" labels to the files when you get a chance? I'm just afraid of getting in trouble again with a previous editor. Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

You should be ok. You have the elements needed to protect a bot from tagging them automatically. A separate bot will ID the rationales and tag appropritately later. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal 2

Hi Masem, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or the correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. I recommend a Peer Review before nominating for FA status since a copy-edit is no guarantee of an FA pass. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that. I do have a few things I do want to do before FA (likely making an article on Aperture Science and moving some design details out from there) but the copyedit was definitely needed. --MASEM (t) 03:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; it was an interesting article to copy-edit, good luck with the eventual nomination. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on Robot

Hi Masem, I just stopped by to thank you for the help on Robot (Doctor Who). The plot section was way too long before and in-universe-y. It's a lot better now and reads much more like an encyclopedia article. Thanks. I also wanted to express my appreciation for the collaboration. It feels like a decade ago when most everybody on the project was collaborating on some article somewhere. It brought back fond memories.

I meant to say this above but missed it somehow. I've alwys appreciated the help you given to the community in the policy areas. There are very few people that understand our poicies well, so it's always great to have somebody to help explain how and why we do things a certain way on the project. It helps people to remember our mission of providing useful and reliable content to our readers. So I wanted to thank you for that also. Best regards. 64.40.54.55 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever, though as I mentioned in the DW thread, there could possibly be more to trim out. Also, as a USian, I know to try to write UK spellings for DW stuff but you may want to double check that too. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steam

Could I get your opinion on the BBB Rating subject over at the Steam article? Clearly a third opinion is needed. -- ferret (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BioShock Infinite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Official Playstation Magazine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of songs in Guitar Hero II know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on January 28, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/January 28, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guitar controllers bundled with Guitar Hero II: cherry red Gibson SG (PS2) and Gibson X-Plorer (Xbox 360)

Players can recreate the lead guitar portions of many rock music songs in the music video game Guitar Hero II using a specially designed guitar-shaped controller (pictured), based on either a Gibson SG for the PlayStation 2 version, a Gibson Explorer for the Xbox 360 version, or else a standard console controller. There are 64 songs total in the PlayStation 2 version while there are 74 songs total for the later Xbox 360 version. The Xbox 360 version adds an additional 24 downloadable songs via Xbox Live Marketplace, bringing the total to 98 songs. The downloadable songs include songs from the original Guitar Hero for the PlayStation 2. Most songs in the game are covers of the original songs performed by WaveGroup Sound, but there are some master recordings. All bonus songs are master recordings that are unlockable by using in-game money within the game's store. The song "Raw Dog" by The Last Vegas was selected as part of the "Be a Guitar Hero" contest for the release of Guitar Hero II.

NFCC bot, ready to make a request at BOTREQ?

I have finished the templates the bot should use. It would place this one on the file page, this one on the talk page of an article and this one on the talk page of the original uploader. While I initially said I would first make a proposal on VPR, I think I am going to directly make the request at BOTREQ. I think if a consensus for the bot is needed, the people at BOTREQ will say so. I mean, as long as WP:NFCC is marked as an official policy this should be in the interest of the community. I think I addressed everything you mentioned regarding the file template (the categorization is by month and year now, as can be seen in my sandbox). This template will detect if it has been sitting on a file page for more than 7 days and should turn red if that happens. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to put the request at BOTREQ, but I would definitely still advertize it at WT:NFC and WP:VPR or VPP (pointing to BOTREQ). I think that the BOTREQ editors will be aware when things have only tenacious support in policy, this might be the case, so saying you are advertizing the request elsewhere too will help alleviate the discussion being one sides and later avoid claims "this had no consensus" since you have the extra advertizing. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done and done. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Wii U "WP is not a sales catalogue"

Launch prices should be listed so that people in the future can look back and see what the product originally costed for references purposes to determine inflation and whatever else a user wants to know or use the price for. This information should be included for all products given a price point by the company that produces these products. Give me a valid reason as to why not to include this pertinent information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.239.195 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please read WP:NOPRICES. Then, open a discussion thread on the article talk page discussing why you believe this information is encyclopedic. If other editors agree with your thinking, WP:CONSENSUS would say it's included. I've seen it on other console articles before, but that's not the best reason for inclusion. --McDoobAU93 04:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xi3/Piston image at Steam

Masem,

Saw your revert of the 2011/2013 CES date for the X3 image. Got me thinking... why do we have that image? We should replace it with Xi3's actual Piston demo unit from the 2013 CES. It's a bit more relevant to the section. I'm completely inexperienced with getting images into Wiki though, and the fair-use nuances that normally surrounded it. -- ferret (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a free image of the 2013 version, then go right ahead. When it was announced the only immediate free one I could find was the 2011 version. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OS X and Linux ports

Valve have just released ports for Counter-Strike as well as Half-Life. Calhoun talk (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I had only mentioned Half Life but if one confirms CS, that can be added there too. (Steam's not showing it here on my end.). --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left it quite a while and there's still no coverage on the CS port. I know HL is quite a bit more popular than CS, but I'm really surprised that nobody has covered it. Calhoun talk 12:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[3] got one, will add now. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God of War FAC

Hey, if you have time, could you review God of War (video game)? --JDC808 ♫ 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just wanted to let you know that I altered a redlink at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in your Reactions section to its correct form. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Thirty Flights of Loving

I was about to write the article, as I did with Gravity Bone, but seems like you were faster thanme :) Great work. Iamplanning to expand it to FA level, if you don't mind. And, will you take it to DYK? — ΛΧΣ21 20:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, DYK makes sense. Please help to fill out anything, I'm about to add its IGF nom and a few other pieces from a gamasutra article. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will help you and then we can take it together to GAN and then FAC. I am not in my PC now so I'll do it tonight. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your DYK nom is good to go (just reviewed it), but you still need a QPQ review of another nomination to get it approved. --PresN 21:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know I need the QPQ and will try to get to in the next day or so (hopefully today), and will update the nom when I get done. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you that Batman Arkham City is up for FAC

I've nominated this article again, it failed last time not through opposition but lack of interest. It's a quality article encompassing all the available information in a neat, presentable and interesting way, so I hope you can lend your voice to the discussion if you have the time. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone you know?

I may be clutching at nothing here, but Pirated windows 7 install disc (talk · contribs) seems a little suspicious. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Not aware of any enemies I may have here. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to link here, might give you a clue who Pirated windows 7 install disc is. Nick Dose (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crime victims and perpetrators

Hi, Masem. I am attempting to get some feedback on a proposal with a few editors I've had interactions with previously. (We discussed an issue related to events notability here.) If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at User talk:Location#Crime victims and perpetrators and offer any comments or suggestions. I don't want to go "live" with it if it is not an improvement. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:The cave video game cover.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just making you aware of User:Pirated_windows_7_install_disc. Nick Dose (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody's already notified you about this. I hate this bug showing outdated revisions. Nick Dose (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Bone FAC

Hey! I have nominated Gravity Bone for FA and I'd like to know if you would be able to review it. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quadrilateral Cowboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hacking (computing) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Half Shekel.jpg. And if so, what's the justification for that? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY (and CC-BY-SA)'s attribution requires you to follow the attribution that they , the image creator, want them to use short of endorsing them or the like. So if they ask that CC-BY's ok for their images but require a link to their website, they're perfectly fine to request that and we're perfectly find to follow that. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thirty Flights of Loving

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, are you capable of blanking the edit note on a diff? I reverted a spam link on Steam, but the link is also in the edit note. I'm not sure if it's pure spam or a malware site. I'm not sure where one would report a diff that needs cleared. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For finding the free images of all Blendo Games' videogames! I am looking forward to work with you to get Thirty Flights of Loving to featured article status. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ21 17:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Spamming NFCR or simply tagging files?

I decided to work through Δs toolserver report again a bit. I don't intend to outright remove 10c vios. Instead, I intend to do what the planned bot was supposed to do. Now I don't know whether it is really a good idea to spam NFCR with all entries from the report. Thus I would follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 52#Bot to detect NFCC#10c violations. This will populate the categories specified by the file page tag. Should I also leave a message at NFCR for every violation? I personally think NFCR should be left for NFCC#8 vios (which require further discussion). Then, after 7 days, I will check the files in the maintenance category again and if a rationale is still lacking, will remove those uses and tag unused files under CSD F5.

Thoughts? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree keeping NFCR to the subjective cases - mostly NFCC#8 , as well as some NFCC#1 and #3a, and definitely not #10c. What I would do is sorta like you planned, but a few steps I would add include doing a fuller announcement at VPP and possibly CENT and definitely NFC, and perhaps AN, to explain what you are about to do and that you are doing it manually/script assisted - this gives you a central message that you can add to your tags to say "this is part of this manual effort to bring #10c compliance", only to easy any possible lashback you may get (despite you following policy to the letter). The plan otherwise sounds fine as to avoid NFCR spam. I would give yourself 24hr after leaving that message just to make sure that if anyone has a problem before you start, they can address it. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done as you suggested. For further information about this task, please check User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task, where I documented everything that is relevant to this task. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 00:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Notability talk page request

Hi Masem. I saw your Notability talk page ranking here. I would appreciate your reply to my post at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I just looked at your user page. Interested in music, FA and GA writer, notability guideline contributor ... I definitely found the right person to help me make sense of all this! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cave

Thank you for responding to a genuine deletion with a genuine addition. It's quite a novel experience! danno_uk 14:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wreck-It Ralph, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grand Theft Auto, MCV and Bowser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN credit

--Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously Photogenic Guy merge

Hi. I have a question about your merge from Ridiculously Photogenic Guy to List of Internet phenomena#Ridiculously Photogenic Guy. It looks to me like you rewrote the entry in the list article – is that correct? I'm following up because you deviated from WP:Merging#How to merge and WP:Copying within Wikipedia, which don't apply if you didn't copy. You also removed the {{afd-mergefrom}}. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy short of reusing some of the references; the entry did not yet exist in the list but it should have likely been if it had those sources beefore. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Your rewrite and "Bare references" falls under WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, so nothing needs to be done. Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Dear Admin Masem,

What is your proposal for the Voyager images? Should one just delete all of them from wikipedia and leave no screencaps for any episode. This would seem a really radical solution. Admin Fut. Perf. mostly deletes the images but I thought this was supposed to be a discussion and that one would single out the images that could be saved. At this rate by Admin Fut. Perf., there won't be any Voyager screncaps for any Voyager episodes left. But Fut Perf. has stated that he doesn't watch Star Trek so how would he/she know which screencap might meet NFC? Most images likely failed NFC but a few could have passed NFC but once they're deleted, no one would know. Do you have a reply--or is it better to have a good wikipedia article with several sourced texts but no image. I did do some work yesterday on improving and sourcing Future's End and Alter Ego. --Artene50 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not writing articles for Trek fans, but for a general audiance. If Future Perfect hasn't seen a single episode and is commenting on the images, s/he's probably the best type of reviewer of their appropriateness for them. We're looking for more than just implied significance to the episode. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

edit

I assume erasing my comment was not intentional: [4]

Yea, unintentional. I had been ec'd during the edit, but when I went to readd my comment, yours wasn't in the main edit text. Suspect some timing conflicts on server backend, but no, no intention to remove yours. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Magical Mystery Cure

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Glados-welcome.ogg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Add Polygon to VGReviews

Hi, you recently participated in this discussion about additions to the VGReviews template. Do you mind clarifying your opinion on the inclusion of Polygon (website) in the template? Polygon has been around for over a year now; they were provisionally called "Vox Games" when they were still a subsection of parent website The Verge (owned by Vox Media). Polygon was only separated into its own website four months ago but the editorial staff has been together for much longer, hence the confusion in the discussion about its "established-ness". Axem Titanium (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Video game clone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Karate Championship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is requested

In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

We can't use Phoronix refs to support mention of Phoronix (That's a COI), but we can at least mention them in relevance given by other sources

What the hell did you mean by that. I am sorry, but I don't see the problem. That section didn't rely on phoronix-only. What's wrong about phoronix? Proofs of the content here on wikipedia can be found there.

I don't think the removal of that part was correct. I really don't like if I spend some time writing for Wikipedia, something that is referenced, relevant and can give visitor some background about the subject ... and then someone deletes the text. If you don't mind I'll restore that part again. If you have a problem with it, please write here about what should be improved and I'll try, or improve it yourself, just do not delete relevant information please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubozrout (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, you can't use phoronix or its forums as they are not reliable sources, and using them to inject these details into the Steams reeks of self-promotion. Secondly, now that their claims have been validated as true, their part in the Steam article is trivial - in that we can acknowledge the website as identifying the likelihood of Steam for Linux, but we dont need to document all their finds anymore as the product is now out. Hence we only need one line that I did add to mention them. (btw, it doesn't matter what effort you put into something, it's open for deletion.) --MASEM (t) 21:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It took me some time to rewrite it (again). Feel free to edit it, but please do not delete it completely. The whole part is reliable, supported by proofs-only. It is closely related to Valve and Steam and Linux, it shows Valve's Linux interests and may be interesting for readers. I left only one phoronix source, that is based on the fact author was actually invited to Valve's headquarters - this kind of source can not be provided by anyone else but the author of phoronix. But, I do not understand why do you think phoronix is can not be accepted as a relevant source. If they put there some benchmarks or other data backed by proofs, I don't really think it is good to ignore it (take it as unreliable) then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubozrout (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see our policy on reliable sources. Phoronix would not qualify for that given that basically there's one main editor, making it a self-published source. Again, the fact they discovered the evidence of Linux ports as noted by other sources makes them worth a mention in the history, but it is not the place on the Steam article to go into a large discussion on their involvement. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then where do you think it should be posted? Can I add that part to the History section of Steam? As to reliable sources, you can browse through them and see Steam Linux code there + screenshots of running Steam on Linux in 2010. Isn't that a reliable source for planned Linux support? Or, Valve searching for a Linux developer responsible for porting Windows games over to Linux in 2007? I really do not think your attitude is right. It should be mentioned somewhere - therefore if you don't agree this should be in the Linux section itself ... where can I put it (please)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubozrout (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it doesn't belong WP, period. Again, we are limited to what reliable sources say, and all the rumor mongering about Linux Steam wasn't discussed outside of isolated sources. EG a job listing in 2007 is extremely vague and not a good source to use. Phoronix' role is mentioned as part of the rumors leading to the release, but all the other details are vague and unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal 2 reversion

Why did you revert my edit to the Portal 2 plot section? PsychoJosh (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The addition was excessive details in an already-long plot section. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike
  2. ^ http://www.giantbomb.com/roguelike/92-1065/
  3. ^ http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=What_a_roguelike_is
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem&oldid=543430018"