On 2 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harold Prince, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 02:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your revert. I think you may be interested in User_talk:Citation_bot#"Removed_URL_that_duplicated_unique_identifier". Nemo 17:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the alerts; I truly apologize for being so aggressive in my editing and will make every effort to pace myself. Sc2353 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edit citing word count. This is the first I'm hearing about a word count limit, so this question is out of ignorance - is the word count limit for an individual episode, or for the entire page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnometal (talk • contribs)

It's per episode on a list like this, 200 words. See MOS:TV. --Masem (t) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Stan Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to KCAL

Video game controversies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kevin McCarthy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 7 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 01:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK bot failed to update the Main Page today. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very interested in your views on CAPS. There is a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 and other such boats here on the very subject of using caps in the title of a work. It's talking about Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, and later an Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant. I've put this here rather than at the pump, to retain some focus there. Broichmore (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ernie Colón, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at the non-free use of this particular file. It's currently being used in five articles: Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Shelbyville, Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Pulaski, Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Crump, Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Chattanooga and Tennessee College of Applied Technology - Newbern. It has a rationale for one of these uses and sort-of-quasi rationales for the other four. Normally, I think a logo such as this would be OK if used in a parent article like Tennessee College of Applied Technology, but not really OK for use in individual articles about child entities (i.e. individual campuses) per WP:NFC#UUI17; however, as you can see, the file isn't being used in the "parent" article, which is pretty much just a list article without any real content. Looking at the official websites of each campus (except the one website which seems to no longer exist), the logo can be seen being used with the campus name being added like shown here. Techincially, I guess those would be considered child-entity specific logos, but they are essentially the same logo with just a different campus name, which means WP:NFCC#3 might come into play. So, bascially it seems to be a question of using one non-free file six times or six non-free files one time each. Do you think the current usage is OK per WP:NFCCP? Any suggestions on what should be down if not? Upload the individual logos and move the file to the parent article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the logo were non-free, yes, the usage is wrong - the single use on the parent article would be only appropriate. But I want to say this may be PD-textlogo (the logo is relatively simple) so this could be a free image. --Masem (t) 05:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response. Yes, it might be possible for this to be PD-logo per c:COM:TOO United States. If the parent logo is PD though, then the individual child articles should also be PD for the same reason, right? Now, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the file needs to be non-free. You seem to be suggesting that it should be only used in the parent article. Would it then be acceptable in your opinion to upload the individual child logos as non-free for use in the individual child entity articles? It seems that the number of non-free uses would be the same regardless of whether one file is used six times or six files are used one time each, but obviously six files means more non-free files being hosted. The copyrightable elements of the logo would be the same so basically it would be like uploading the same file six times. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the child entities are just adding their location to the existing NFC logo as simple text under the logo, then I would still think that you'd only need the parent logo, and none of the child ones. If somehow the name was integrated into the parent logo in a more artistic way, that would be different. --Masem (t) 14:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a comment, not an edit. I didn't "disrupt" anything except your fragile ego and your obstinate refusal to admit that "impacts" is a crap word that should be discouraged here. There are many appropriate, accurate and grammatically correct alternatives to this neologism, some of which I listed in my comment. You'll probably delete this comment, but you won't prevent me from replacing "impacts" wherever I see it. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So as to avoid another Akira situation, I have created a draft for the upcoming 4th Matrix here, should any additions you want to add in or if you want to reshape how it looks. Rusted AutoParts 20:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's one I was not at all planning to start. Just not enough information from even the 2017 -onward rumors for a sufficiently long article. --Masem (t) 20:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s there though if you wish to help with it. Another thing, is the David Mitchell that’s co-writing David Robert Mitchell like linked in the section or is it the author David Mitchell who wrote Cloud Atlas that The Wachowskis directed a film of? Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Variety's article didn't go into enough depth but I picked the one that seems to be a screenwriter and in film, rather than the one that does more traditional lit. --Masem (t) 21:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it is the novelist. [1] That Mitchell worked with Hemon on Sense8 which is also Wachowskis...--Masem (t) 21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is very out of date, and duplicates or is duplicated by other content. Tony May (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Violence and video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin McCarthy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Control (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray tracing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, there is a new discussion on Talk:List of most-liked YouTube videos, if you're interested and you want to leave a comment you are welcome--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. Would you be able to assist me with a complaint? Another admin recommended I take it to ANI but I'm uncomfortable with doing that. I want to speak to an individual admin about a long-term experienced editor. And I need them to take action against that editor if they deem necessary. Can you review my complaint, preferably privately? If you decline, could you please refer me to another administrator? Best. 69.9.33.228 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the issue is related to personal information, privacy or the like, you should look to WP:RFO to have that dealt with in private channels. Otherwise, there's nothing really "private" about it, and ANI is unfortunately the best place to put such a complaint. (I'm guessing by lack of contributions this is related to a different account or IP). --Masem (t) 14:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, too bad you don't want to handle it. I hope you have some admin friends who do. 69.9.33.228 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on this, I think we may have a reason for ongoing now. Noah^Talk 04:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: I agree that situation needs potential ongoing. My suggestion- the next potential blurb will be the Indian spacecraft. When that goes up - pushing Dorian down to be knocked off, reopen a new ongoing discussion focusing on the devastation in the Bahamas as well as anything in the US (but it looks like the US got relatively lucky?) as the point of why ongoing is appropriate. --Masem (t) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Now you should post to ask for Dorian to go to ongoing with the Bahamas sourcing you might have. --Masem (t) 15:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put both the main and effects article there since Dorian will hit Canada today. Noah^Talk 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Matt Thorson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Masochism

Video game clone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Homage

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 7 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chandrayaan-2, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello

Microsoft created the Xbox Game Studios the first one was called Microsoft Games started on 2000 (can you read all in internet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the instructions of ((Infobox company)). Owner= should only be filled if the company (in the infobox) is a privately owned company and another major entity has some equity ownership in it. Parent= should be used when the company is wholly owned by another. Xbox Game Studio is currently a division of MS, so it is clearly owned by MS, and thus we use "parent" here. --Masem (t) 21:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIE_Worldwide_Studios look — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One wrong does not make other wrongs right. Masem linked to the guidelines so you can check the out yourself. I cleaned up the SIE WWS infobox to better fit the guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 20:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. I added on to your answer at WP:MCQ#Question about two already-in-use images that were disallowed on other pages. because I felt there was more to things than just getting the bot to stop removing the files. If any of what I posted was incorrect, please feel free to point it out. One thing I noticed about when looking at the WTNI article was that an IP simply moved File:WTNI 1640TheChamp logo.png to the image gallery from the infobox (most likely due to the change in the station's branding) without taking into account that the file was licensed as ((Non-free logo)). I removed the non-free former logo from the gallery, but am now wondering whether it cannot simply be converted to ((PD-logo)) instead. If it can, I will re-add the file to the article; if not, we'll I don't think it can be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's too simple for US ToO, it can be PD text logo. --Masem (t) 00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I converted the license and re-added the file to the article, though I’m not sure whether a two-image gallery of basically the same logo really needs a stand-alone section, even if the files are PD. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Karbala stampede, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 04:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You changed the source of a statement in the k2-18b article to a different source which says something different and not what the statement says so I've reverted your change. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC) These two papers out today both say they've detected water but other than that they disagree. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll check to see if both should be used. --Masem (t) 22:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also removed the free-access source, replacing it with nature.com source which is behind paywall - a bad practice. I reverted, but please take caution.--Trurle (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, we should be using the peer-reviewed published version via cite journal, but that also holds an arxiv parameter to link to the pre-print so that both are available. --Masem (t) 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I was wondering if considering your interest in the topic area with video game addiction, if you could consider taking a look at the review for this article that I nominated. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will definitely look, but ping in a few days, after what I see are pretty extensive comments to address first :) --Masem (t) 16:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, I think this IP seems to be a sock editor or at least an editor trying to EVADE. There edits haven't been helpful and mostly seem to target me. [[2]] Springee (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmmmm. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing anything immediate. Mainspace edits while an issue are using RSes. Need more data points before I think it is reasonable to take action, but let me say that the trend is towards a block. --Masem (t) 16:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP is back and this time calling other editors racist. [[3]] I believe this IP is related to both 6years as well as a second IP address. 6years and this IP are both editing this article (as well as the ones where I've been hounded).[[4]] The other IP, from the same location as the new one stopped editing literally minutes before 6Years's established their account. [[5]] I have some additional evidence and I'm looking to do an SPI but I need a bit of time to put it together. Springee (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also not sure that accusing other editors of misogynist attacks is CIVIL. [[6]] Springee (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more recent IP comments are of concern, but as for any connect to 6Years, that needs a lot more data. I'll warn the IP at this point as that's crossing the line. --Masem (t) 15:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with regards to 6years and sock editing. The IP continues to harass [[7]] and attack others [[8]]. Springee (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's so far only one edit of concern after the caution I left and other edits fall into AGF type. Not dismissing the potential sock but I can't really do much else with the broom responsibly here yet, but will periodically check on contributions if they keep it up. --Masem (t) 16:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor restored this bad faith accusation [[9]]. The claim is groundless and presented without evidence. Since I don't have a redit account even if they included a link there would be nothing to it. Is this sufficient for a NOTHERE block? Springee (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 14 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eddie Money, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 03:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, coming to you here just to point out that the exchange you saw on WP:NPOV/N is why I've opposed including Ngo's view. Springee has evinced a very particlular set of criteria for what is allowable. Anything they perceive to have a POV that is critical of Ngo is a "tabloid." What they have asked for isn't your proposal for a contextualized view of Ngo's statement but rather a denial. "Other people call him conservative but he says he's center-right" full stop. As such, I wanted to let you know that I do find your suggestion reasonable and appropriate, and if Springee will agree to allow that sources that criticize Ngo are not necessarily tabloids I'd be happy to support it. However considering that Springee's response to my line of questioning was to log off and walk away, I have my doubts. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, from everything I've read, Ngo's article in a proper BLP/NPOV is going to be generally negative because of the media's criticism of him, which cannot be avoided, so whitewashing cannot be done. But we still can talk to the criticism and remain impartial which is just where I'm trying to see it from. (as well as the fact tha the ABOUTSELF question has arise from several different unrelated cases with inconsistent application). --Masem (t) 13:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to make sense of the ending for the article's plot section but I'm struggling. It might be the result of cut content and the two different versions, but the end level dictates that Shandor needs a blood sacrifice and the ghost energy to become a Supreme Destructor, but he becomes a Destructor without sacrificing Ilyssa. I can't tell if there is meant to be a difference between his Destructor Form and a Supreme Destructor since he seems to have the same powers regardless. It's not super important but I'm struggling to make the plot make sense. I don't want to OMIT he needs a blood sacrifice but at the same time it doesn't seem to have an actual pay off. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been way too long to be able to know without replaying. Try looking for Let's Plays of it? Even a Wikia page may help. --Masem (t) 16:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm watching videos of it but it doesn't seem to make sense, that's why I'm stuck. At the start of the final level Ray says a blood sacrifice is needed, Shandor then says he needs his own blood to become Supreme Destructor but then immediately fights the Ghostbusters. There's never any blood involved. I'm guessing its just a goof. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BronyCon&type=revision&diff=916368400&oldid=916349480

In response to your edit summary here, I'd like to contend that BronyCon was still by and large only one of many fan conventions, including GalaCon and Everfree Northwest targeted to fans of the My Little Pony franchise. The first sentence of the article even says "BronyCon was an annual fan convention held on the east coast of the United States for fans of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic animated television show, among them adult and teenage fans who call themselves bronies." I do not believe it should be a multi-genre convention, as it had no specific focus on other genres, such as anime, video games or comics, unless they were tied to the My Little Pony franchise. I believe that Brony conventions should be there own genre. --DeathTrain (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except, there's gaming, there's panels on other related shows, etc. Perhaps it can be first a brony convention, but it definitely had multi-genre elements as a secondary one, so I wouldn't exclude that to favor calling the genre "brony". --Masem (t) 18:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, the vast majority of special guests, panels and gaming were still largely related to the My Little Pony franchise.

For example:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgtl42pkTdDsAYX4cNh4ZzzKAamLFRwpR

When they played Rock Band, they often played My Little Pony songs, official or fanmade. On what other shows were there panels related to? Even if there were of elements of other genres of conventions, other conventions such as those exclusively categorized as anime, furry or gaming conventions also often have elements of other genres of conventions. DeathTrain (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not disagreeing that "Brony" could be added, but the con also had elements of other cons (furry, sci-fi, etc.) So "Brony, multi-genre" is a fair scriptor. The one thing to consider is looking around at other show-focused cons is what "genre" is used there. There's no consistency to follow through with, but multiple genres is allowed. --Masem (t) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, so if more Brony conventions had their own Wikipedia page like GalaCon, Everfree Northwest, TrotCon, Equestria LA, or BABSCon, would it then be appropriate for "Brony" to be the only genre? DeathTrain (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can only also speak to Everfree, but that would be the same boat, it may be first a brony convention but it has additional activities beyond that that additionally qualify it as "multi-genre". And when you look down a list like List of science fiction conventions and check the show specific ones, if they aren't just "Science fiction" they include the show name as the genre. So technically, this would be "MLPFIM, multi-genre", not really "brony". --Masem (t) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about the point about other conventions that have activities beyond that of their genre? Otakon has a gaming hall. And remember, there are both "Brony" conventions and so-called "all-generations" MLP conventions like My Little Pony Fair. I believe that there is a significant difference between the two. DeathTrain (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still disagree, but I see where you are coming from. If you want to change it to that, go ahead and I won't revert. --Masem (t) 19:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thank you. DeathTrain (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clean Air Act (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Wheeler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hats off for this comment [[10]]. Your thought police concerns mirrored my own. Springee (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on articles on controversial/political video game topics. You seem to like the space and do a good job considering how difficult writing about those topics can be. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello

can you say me who is the owner of the gaming companies? MS or XGS? Jicco123 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The individual studios like Double Fine or Rare are owned by XGS, which itself is owned by Microsoft, in that corporate structure. --Masem (t) 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So XGS owns Double and Rare? And MS the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any of the current studios listed on Xbox Game Studios (not just Double Fine and Rare) are directly owned by XGS in the corporate structure: they report to XGS' management, not MS's management. XGS itself is owned by Microsoft. --Masem (t) 20:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I know so what I dont unterstand in your XGS articel shows all gaming studios with "Acquired"

so but the acquisitions of MS shows that they have owns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Microsoft owns everything that XGS owns, since they also own wholly own XGS. For all purposes, when XGS acquires a studio, MS is effectively acquiring that studio. That list List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft is covering all of the acquisitions MS has made over all of its divisions. --Masem (t) 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay

MS is owner and XGS is parent right? MS owns the studios but MS postponed the studios in his own division XGS? Is that right? Have I understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically yes. In terms of the monetary/financial value, MS is the owner. In terms of the corporate structure and who answers to who, XGS is the parent. --Masem (t) 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the XGS article the initiative has no notes I can write the head with source would that be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jicco, your English is completely incomprehensible, which clearly goes against our competence guidelines. Furthermore, you refuse to sign or indent your comments on talk pages, even after being told so on multiple Wikimedia projects. Pleaase consider editing the German Wikipedia instead. 219.241.21.115 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er, Jicco's language is clear enough to try to answer. Yes, they may get clearer answers on de.wiki but I think what they asked here is fine. Poor english use on talk pages is NOT part of what CIR is covering. --Masem (t) 23:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your contribution to 2I/Borisov. Thank you very much! Hashar (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 26 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you give me credit as well? I want to remember this one. Cheers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 27 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shuping Wang, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not familiar with wikipedia policy; figured as you added it, this would be an appropriate place to ask. The gamasutra article referenced only cites a publisher's account, and doesn't disclose terms. The only thing I can actually find a source from; off Gamasutra is a businesswire article, which I feel is much better written. It's the source from gamasutra article.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190923005321/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.40.184 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for deleting duplicate reference on Shuping Wang, I just didn't notice her publication in the bottom section "Further reading". PoetVeches (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. Thanks for your comments at WP:NOT. Concerning your comment about the acceptability of MSRP [11]: What level of consensus is there for this? are you aware of any substantial discussions, RfCs, etc on this? --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no awareness at project-wide level, only that practice shows acceptance for reasonably limited MSRP of base products when the base products are significant subject of discussion for their own article. I know in the video games project we have discussed to what level of detail pricing should be covered in hardware but that's isolated from rest of project. If you feel this may be something of contention, maybe a RFC to confirm or reject practice? But I mean, is there a boat being tipped here? (The question at NOT is of a few extreme cases). --Masem (t) 19:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is there a boat being tipped here? That's why I started the discussion, to get a better idea if that's the case. The responses suggest so, as some editors are treating these "extreme cases" as anything but.

Putting aside issues of notability and clearly due weight for specific articles...

I can see how standardized pricing, like MSRP (or other stable valuations), could be considered an attribute of encyclopedic and historical worth. If there's wide consensus for this, then WP:NOT needs to be changed. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One could argue that here the "and a justified reason for the mention" in the current version would include the general practice that MSRP is justified for notable products, but again, that's not codified in any RFC or the like, so if you feel this needs to be added, you can start an RFC there. --Masem (t) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 5 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Kirby (attorney), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Fortnite Battle Royale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CBC

My Little Pony (IDW Publishing) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dark Horse

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with your opinion that "No date is really needed here" [12]. A date would help very much. Perhaps you need to read the section more closely. There is no sense of how long any of this took, or of when the script was actually written. I have just noticed another edit that's needed in that section, and am fixing that and also reinstating the "where?" tag, as a date would help clarify things very much. Kind regards, --Philologia 09:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I did not delete it, I just created a "professional overview"

Jicco123 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a whole separate article that is a detailed coverage of the studios, so the table that was there to start was the professional overview to give the idea of the where and when for each. That table format is common for the large publisher articles. --Masem (t) 14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay I unterstand I'll undo it for a moment to get the source code — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicco123 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a new user so I'm not sure where to put this. On your page? On the article page? On the edit log ? I have no clue.

Your rationale for deleting my edit to the page for "procedural generation" was in error. You said "these are just random events and not procedural". This is false. I specifically cited not just events but branching trees of generation - terrain, inhabitants, treasure . Please revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles999JF (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not clear that is procedural generation and in such as case, you need to provide a source to affirm that is the case. --Masem (t) 16:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem, I just made an article for En Esur, a large Bronze Age settlement whose existence and excavation was announced yesterday. There's been a lot of news coverage and that seems to be expanding [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Do you think this could be a candidate for "In the News," or do you think that's unlikely? -Darouet (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My gut - it cannot hurt to try ITN, but if that does not get legs, DYK is a clear logical place. But its getting news coverage so it doesn't fail any immediate ITN tests I can think of outside of academic reliability on the 5000-yr age estimate. --Masem (t) 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK — thanks! As far as I can "Tel," there's no new publication out on the site (perhaps forthcoming), so the "5,000" date is just what media have repeated from the archaeological press release given on Facebook. The date will probably be fairly well constrained by linking artifacts to other sites, before any chemistry is involved.

Would I place that "ITN" template at the top of the article itself, or in the appropriate ITN candidate location? -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be instructions at the ITN pages about how to nominate the article. I don't remember them off hand but they do start by creating a template for the DYK nomination, and later adding a template to the article talk page to draw attention there. --Masem (t) 17:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem I added a few more sources and made the nomination [23]. We'll see what people say! There's a lot going on in the world so understandable if people choose not to post. -Darouet (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it went up! -Darouet (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I directly addressed your inappropriate remarks that you posted here, but for the sake of formality this is your talk page warning.

Please stop casting aspersions. I shouldn't have to remind you that Arbitration Committee has ruled that "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation" and "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors'conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page." It is also unacceptable to make serious accusations without evidence. Accusations of WP:POINTy behavior are quite serious and can easily result in blocks and bans. If you want to make such an accusation, please do so on an appropriate noticeboard and cite your evidence there.

I can't explain your bizarre behavior excerpt perhaps you think you WP:OWN the page Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. I suggest you take a more welcoming attitude towards editors, even those you consider of lesser rank or importance than yourself, who wish to discuss the merits of a policy change. Your insular attitude suggests a lack of confidence in the policies you defend, and some kind of insecurity in your status. I'm not here to question your status. I just think the crystal ball policy is defective, and I'm seeking consensus from other editors in a civil, orderly process.

I've come to precisely the correct place to discuss my concern with the policy. I have followed formal structures to gauge consensus on the change I'm requesting. You accuse me of "pointy" behavior, yet I'm doing exactly what the WP:POINT page says I should do. It says don't try to enforce a perverse interpretation of a rule you don't like. Instead, go to the policy talk page and propose a change. Well, here I am. On the policy talk page. And yet you attack me? No. Unacceptable.

Please comment on content, not contributors. I see no reason why you can't argue against a change in the policy without having to resort to personal attacks and aspersions on me personally. I suggest you try harder to assume good faith, and focus on facts rather than personalities. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't addressed anything about you, only the nature of how you are approaching the discussion that is mixing up how the consensus/dispute resolution policy is done, and which is not helping to resolve the issue. That is not aspirations, see WP:NPA. On the other hand, statements like "From the evidence I see at WP:FA, the best editors simply ignore this dumb policy. It's the ones who aren't royalty and rockstars who suffer and have to argue out from under this nonsense." are the type of comments that are aspirations - not actionable but still harsh - and set a tone for how people are going to reply to you. I see the same, non-actionable but edge case behavior at the talk page for BMW M3, just at the edge of ridiculing other editors. That approach doesn't make friends in these type of discussions, and as I read your language, implies a harsh tone towards anyone wanting to keep it in there. I and the other editors trying to approach that RFC from how we handle NOT which is not meant to be changed at the drop of a hat, and when changes are made, they are carefully considered. We're not hear to help result the BMW M3 content issue for you, only to resolve the apparent contradiction in NOT that's been identified. I will still caution that even with the sentence removed, that is not going to change how the current consensus direction on the BMW M3 is going, because we're not change NOT to read "rumors must be included", only that they can be, but that still leaves it to consensus to be added. So I will caution that while this is a good change to try to make to NOT, it is not going to end up getting you where you think you want on the BMW page. --Masem (t) 06:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I've got another aboutself question and wanted to see what you think. The PragerU article references a Mother Jones article that offers a very short summary of several PU videos. The MJ article links to the videos it summarizes. Is it a violation of ABOUTSELF for the Wiki article to do the same? I'm really on the fence here. I personally think the summaries offered by MJ are misleading/overly simplified to the point of distorting the message [[24]]. Another editor added links to the videos in the article [[25]]. So now we have several things in play.

• Were the summaries accurate to the video content?
• Does ABOUTSOURCE apply here or is this unduly promotional?
• Does the link in the source article give weight to linking in the Wiki article?

In my opinion, this becomes an interesting ABOUTSELF boundary case. The videos are clearly promotional since PragerU exists to get it's message out. Thus it's unlike using the NRA's statements on red flag laws to explain why the NRA opposes a red flag law. Thus in general I can see the unduly promotional concern. However, what if the summaries are inaccurate (ranging from clearly false to arguably based on semantics)? If the summary is clearly false I'm assuming we would just remove from the article. What if the summaries are in the gray area (this is my opinion regarding the actual PragerU RSN question)? Do we say if the claims are included the videos can also be included? Would we the editors be allowed to summaries those videos? I don't like the idea of just including citations without really referencing them in the text? Finally, is this a case where the unduly promotional should override the ABOUTSELF aspect? I'm interested in your thoughts since you seem to have a clear vision about this issue. Springee (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the only reason thing to be done is to attribute the short video descriptions to the MJ article, as the MJ article is clearly biased in how it is treating PragerU, and unless there are other similar descriptions, should not just let one source be factually summarizing this. That at least takes out the potentially misleading summaries out of WP voice and encourages a reader who is interested to check the videos for themselves. I don't know enough about the Prager situation that if the video themselves are reasonable to include as potentially an ((external media)) box. --Masem (t) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts, that was really quite helpful. I hope you don't mind that I ask these questions. I find you do a nice job of avoiding saying yes or no but instead suggesting an alternative way to look at the problem/question. Springee (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your creation of and significant expansion upon the section "Hearthstone ban and Hong Kong protests" in Blizzard Entertainment. The section is well-formatted, well-cited, fairly neutral, and quite extensive. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your work updating the 2019 Nobel Laureates’ biographies. Jehochman Talk 02:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 9 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 9 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 10 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Parkala Massacre/1 ? Saw your name at the task-force page .... ∯WBG^converse 12:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh, wrong link:-( ∯WBG^converse 03:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the articles Olga Tokarczuk and Peter Handke, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 18:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October

... with thanks from QAI

I found the recognition on my talk and want to share, because credit and thanks for improving Olga Tokarczuk go mostly to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am requesting Nintendo Account to be added to the online services section of the Nintendo Switch page. One can not access Nintendo eShop, MyNintendo or Nintendo Switch Online without logging into Nintendo Account first. Nintendo Account should be listed as the online service similar to PlayStation's PSN. Coolyfett (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nintendo Account pre-dates the Switch, so makes no sense to add it there. --Masem (t) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 2 — 3nd Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2019, the project has:

231 Featured Articles 82 Featured Lists 11 Featured Topics 1 Featured Portals

32 Featured Pictures 1,470 Good Articles 29 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

---

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 ~~~~~)

Masem, I was hoping you might offer some suggestions. Based on the ABOUTSELF discussion I made a BOLD change to the WP:V (not something I would do lightly) ‎https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=921489521&oldid=921488255. The change was rejected and I'm waiting for some additional information as to why. It is certainly possible that my insertion was clumsy and needs more refinement. Do you have any suggestions for how to go about doing this and where I might get some additional editor input. I would like this change to be driven or rejected by a clear consensus rather than just a few editors. Thanks! Springee (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear sir,

       The Hong Kong protest is still ongoing, and some people has changed Mei's birthplace from Xi'an, China to Hong Kong, along with other things that doesn't follow the settings of Overwatch. Can you please correct the page of Mei constructively and permanently protect the page?
       Thank you. Unknown123Known (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shuping Wang, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the medical researcher Shuping Wang may have saved tens of thousands of lives by defying authorities and exposing an HIV/AIDS scandal in China? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shuping Wang. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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) 00:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great work at Fortnite Battle Royale and other pages relating to video games! HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Watchmen (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reparation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for thinking about Márta Kurtág (failed ITN, but now DYK)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. Do you think the former logos in this article are simple enough to be converted to PD; otherwise, they might not meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4 if they need to remain non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both look PDTextLogo and under the US's TOO to be tagged as such. --Masem (t) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this Masem. I was pretty sure the one used in the gallery was, but not too sure about the one used in the body of the article. The infobox logo was also uploaded as non-free, but that one did clearly seem to be OK as PD; so, I converted it to PD, but wanted a second opinion on the other two. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Watchmen (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Escape from Alcatraz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epic Games Store, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Sweeney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Billy Mitchell. The EGM article is an interesting read, and I'm glad some information finally got put into the article from it. (I was hesitating doing it myself because of the continuous accusations by the IP editor for any edits I made). The early life and gaming experiences in particular really needed to be expanded, and the article now reads much more like an encyclopedic biography. Btw, after reading the EGM article and other sources, did you get a sense that "businessman" would be more appropriate than "restaurateur" in the lead sentence? When I had done a brief review of the sources, "restaurateur" seemed more common, but the IP editor was hung up about that term for a while (although they only provided a single source, which used "restaurateur" as the description [26]). Thanks again. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, the last half of that EGM starts getting into weeds that don't need to be there. I would agree with "restaurateur" claim, as he's about running the chain of restaurants, not multiple businesses. --Masem (t) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was my thought about it. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Masem: Hi, are you sure about new organization of the Hearthstone gameplay section? We already have separate article about hearthstone game modes, is it better to have Battlegrounds as separate section on Hearthstone main page? Battlegrounds is not "just another game mode", it will be much easier to use links to Battlegrounds, if it has its own separate section. Also, when Blizzard officially release this mode, expect from people to expand description of Battlegrounds mode. EchoBlu (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In game, you get to Battlegrounds via a button that takes you to either Battelgrounds or Arena. It is not being treated as separate from Arena or Tavern Brawl. --Masem (t) 00:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Masem, I am new on Wikipedia. I would like your advice on the best course of action to deal with an editor with a strong bias about certain things who stalks me and undoes the vast majority of my edits. My interest is mainly on political matters, especially where I have an interest and feel I can best contribute. I have found the articles I have edited to be very one sided and in some cases, and the editor stalking me has a clear agenda to leave those articles one sided. As a new editor, I am rapidly learning the rules and policies and I have shown a total openness to learn. At this stage, given this person's attitude, I wonder if it is even worth trying to make Wikipedia better; I am somewhat discouraged. Anyhow, I look forward to you guidance and counsel. Best regards. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at a sample of your edits you have jumped head first into the American Politics area, which is highly contentious. These are frequently targetted by anonymous editors that want to completely change the stance of the articles, and thus editors will be antsy about a new editor that are making similar changes even if they are in good faith. Any articles in that area are going to have to be carefully edited to follow policy and the like, and trying to make new edits without having a full understanding of the core policies we have: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, is likely going to get you into more trouble than necessary. My best suggestion is to find areas of WP that you are interested in but are not contentious, or if you want to stay with the topic area, to work on talk pages first before adding to articles before editing them. Working this way will help you understand how the policies and guidelines work, particularly around these topics. --Masem (t) 22:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your answer. Very helpful and appreciated. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Ahn Sang-soo (born May 1946). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. Since (1) you're an admin, (2) often help out a BLPN and (3) have experience with non-free content, I wondering if you'd mind taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

82 as "extremely low" cannot be taken seriously, Masem. It didn't get 62 or 72. The perfect score count originated from Reddit, and while is as simple as doing 1+1=2, I'm fine with having it removed, but still the fact that was an "Internet thing" must be said to be more neutral and factual as possible. The Kotaku source cites ResetEra as the place where the thing started: "In a large thread on the popular message board ResetEra asking whether it was appropriate for Death Stranding to rack up so many awards, conversations got heated". And even there 70% of users thinks the game must be nominated.

No notable critic, website or video game outlet is cited in the article. I'm sorry Masem, but that's how things are. I suggest you to accept the compromise. Lone Internaut (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole point of how Kotaku summarized the situation (and who is in agreement with the oddity of it) is that 82/100 is way lower than most GOTY nominations in the past, and most of the "respected" sources rated it low - those perfects weren't from the top-tier review sites. So the general scope of the reviews, coupled with the number of noms it got, raised questions if the relationship between Keighley and Kojima impacted that. But Keighley has cleared that up to assert there's no way that it could of -- that is the part to meet the neutral stance. We're saying the situation was noticed, raised questions, and seemingly resolved. --Masem (t) 01:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mh, I don't know. I still see it as a more "Internet forums and social media" related thing. I never read notable video game outlet editorial insight or special piece, dedicated to the fact that is odd the game got 9 nominations. Seems like taking two lines of Kotaku, and reading in it more than it says. Other sources discussing the thing specifically would be much better. Lone Internaut (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I did find [27] which confirms there's an issue. But I see what you mean, we can reduce it down to the sheer number of nominations, which Kotaku also gets, and avoid the review/scoring facet. --Masem (t) 01:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better two than just one. Yeah, I'm fine with the edit you suggest. Sorry for the quasi-edit warring. 👍 Lone Internaut (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you help me with this user? He continues to insert this section without consensus--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can also take a look to this edit, it seems like a personal attack (he wrote "Are You out of Your Mind?")--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you can also take a look to this, thanks--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, It's not about being too detailed — it is about expanding the page--Ajax Coleman (talk) 2:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Ajax Coleman. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has to be reverted. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Ajax Coleman (talk) 2:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Several editors have reverted you explaining they think is too detailed. You are edit-warring, which can be cause for a block. Also, I made zero comments about or to you, so saying I made an incivil comment towards you is absolutely wrong. You cannot abuse WP policies like that. --Masem (t) 03:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 4 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article D. C. Fontana, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, would you please look at this editor's edit history (Steveinphilly)? I reported them to the vandalism page but nothing happened. If you look at their recent Tucker Carlson edits this seems like an account that is NOTHERE. [[28]]. Thanks, Springee (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you mind moving Talk:Rick Tyler (white supremacist) to Talk:Rick Tyler? This is a permission I do not have. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Masem (t) 22:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you consult a dictionary :-) The word is "humorous" in British English. Wereon (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I swore I saw it like that before, but I see Oxford states that it is considered an error in UK english, so thank you :) --Masem (t) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 9 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Juice Wrld, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Batman: The Telltale Series (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Noir

Telltale Games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Noir

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found several sources which say Xbox Series X and PS5 are ninth-gen consoles, Games Radar, The Gamer, and [29] also a source saying a new BioShock for ninth gen is coming out Digital Trends. This Geek Wire article mentions how cloud gaming is a threat to ninth gen consoles. I was going to add this to Draft:Ninth generation of video game consoles, do you think we can say these consoles are ninth gen? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With those sources you can add that but I'd be careful in wording to be "The Series X is expected to be one of the first consoles of the ninth-generation". --Masem (t) 19:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did Sony make an official announcement of PS5? If so should that be split as well? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that Valoem got someone to unsalt one of the 9th generation article's possible names and moved it to mainspace. I've moved it back. This shouldn't go live without an WP:VG consensus, especially with the current CRYSTAL nature of the announced consoles and the past issues with citogensis. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, before I take a matter to ANI I wanted to ask if you felt I was being too sensitive. The Andy Ngo topic seems more political and one side vs the other than most. I'm concerned that these comments may have crossed too far over the CIVIL line. I'm considering requesting they be struck (I think removing them myself is only going to make things worse) and asking for a warning that civility must be strictly followed. This one implies I am a paid editor [[30]]. By itself not a huge thing but given the 3 that followed I take it as an attack. "Stop lying buddy..." [[31]]. "Do you know how Wikipedia works?"[[32]] Not really helpful and in context seems like another CIVIL violation. This last one makes a number of accusations about editor behavior rather than content and threatens to "seek a ban".[[33]] Given this is a 1RR topic I think this is something that shouldn't be just overlooked. However, my optics are that of someone involved in the discussion. Do you have any thoughts? Springee (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best I can see before doing any ANI is to remind them that WP:ACDS applies to the topic area, including the talk page, which includes civility restrictions. But also, I'm not seeing anything at the volume/disruption that would mandate a block or ban yet. I mean, you are trying to caution them to watch their civility, and if they keep ignoring that advice, then you likely can do ANI or AE even? --Masem (t) 02:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That's the sort of clear thinking I was looking for! Springee (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well M. MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's nice to see a third party making a good point. Have a goat, as tnx for your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Deletion_of_articles_about_fiction and related.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Telltale Games (2018–present) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Crunch time

The Far Side (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Don Martin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Masem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

On 23 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Masem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 18:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Hello SpacemanSpiff: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Here's to another year of new games to write about. All the best  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC

Masem, would you mind offering an off talk page opinion? My concern that the see also section has 4 Trump-Russia links including one that is repeated from earlier in the page. I got off on a bad foot with this because I confused a Dec 3rd change with new content so the other editor is right to say the general content is not new. Thus I assumed I was correct in saying NOCON=remove the links. That said, the Dec 3rd updates are new and they tool 3 links (one which is a repeat from the start of the Russia section) and expands it to 4. The bigger issues I have are related to talk page behavior. I don't think the other editor has made any effort to address my concerns regarding redundant links and the excessive number of links. This comes across as bad faith. Twice the other editor copied my comments from their talk page to the article talk page in a way that made it look like I was doing the edit [[34]],[[35]]. I twice proposed a solution as well as noted the issues with the current see also links [[36]],[[37]]. The reply was simply to create a timeline of the dispute on the article talk page. [[38]] This comes across as needlessly antagonistic and serves no legitimate talk page function. Any suggestion as to how to handle this? Thanks. Springee (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would still appreciate some input here. Thanks Springee (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't feel the level yet to be an AN issue, so it might be just one of those things to back off and approach again after some time. If they have continued any further, though, then AN/ANI would be a better place for that. --Masem (t) 15:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...Though I intentionally obscured the topic to avoid accusations of forum-shopping. I honestly needed some guidance on how to proceed, as I had to repeatedly make my point, and no one was acknowledging that it was the correct view. Thanks again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think I should create an RfC just to lay out what we can and cannot do? A lot of the conversations seem to be going in circles. In the Bad Old Days, I'd start to lose my cool; now, I can see the loggerheads and want to resolve it without taking the bull through the china shop, or bruising too many egos. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you do do an RFC, it probably should be held at WP:WAF or WP:NOR with appropriate pointers to it on that page and on other noticeboards. I think it is important to set some type of line where SYNTH allows for "obvious" material in a work of fiction, though I believe I have a good idea where that line is. --Masem (t) 16:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree; that line seems pretty clear to me as well. Should I wait to file at NOR, or do you think I've correctly assessed the deadlock in the article talk? I fully admit that, after my wake-up call this past September, I've been questioning my usual approaches, and have found that asking more experienced folk is key to relearning a more successful way of interacting here. Your advice is valuable to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would give it about a week or so from when you started the discussion there before creating the RFC, only to see if there's any middle point consensus that developments before. --Masem (t) 16:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good enough. I'll wait it out for a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 2 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Syd Mead, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, I noticed you added quite a bit of material in this edit to WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Analysis and interpretation. Was that the result of a discussion on another MOS talk page, or just a bold edit? I didn't see anything in the talk page history discussing that paragraph, other than a line or two that Flyer22 had an issue with. Makes me question how many sets of eyes are actually watching that page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was general talk of it for years, but no RFC or anything, mostly a bold edit. --Masem (t) 15:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem, thank you for message. I did take a picture from the side (check out my contributions on Commons) but the light isn't great. I was aware of the reflection problem, but that is something that can be edited. Sadly the console isn't mine, but from a friend. Next time I'll be with her I'll try to bring a tripod and some lights to take some proper pictures, but hey, as you said, a free image is better that a non free image ;).--BugWarp (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2019, the project has:

233 Featured Articles 83 Featured Lists 11 Featured Topics 1 Featured Portals

33 Featured Pictures 1,488 Good Articles 28 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: Rare Replay GT postmortem Interview: Alexandra IDV

---

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 ~~~~~)

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a quick look at the non-free files used in this article? They're not really all that different from the Commons files being used; so, if the Commons files' licenses are OK, then the non-free probably be converted to ((PD-logo)) as well. At the very least, the non-free seem to be ((PD-ineligible-USonly)). There's some non-free being used in the "Logo and identity history" image gallery, but there are others like File:7food network logo.svg being used in the body of the article. Some of these files have be tagged as NFCC#10c violations and it seems unlikely they would meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4, while the non-free ones in the gallery are basically the same and probably would not meet NFG or NFCC#3a. Anyway, before any non-free files get removed by a bot, etc. it might be worth taking a closer look at them to see if they really need to be non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australias a very very low threshold of originality per COM:TOO:Australia, so many of these would be copyrightable in Aus, but as you state, fail the PD-US bar. So they can be convert to free-on-en.wiki images, but can't be moved to Commons. The only one that raises additional concern to me is the color varianets , as the coloring appears to add depth and shadow, which IMO is what elevates an image into copyrightability in the US. (not just a simple drop -shadow, for example). --Masem (t) 02:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. The only file I was kind of concerned about File:Seven Network Coloured Logos.png and File:PLUS7 Logo.png because the color gradations do seem to add a some depth unlike File:Seven 1975-89.png; if, however, those two need to be non-free, then I'm not seeing how the Plus7 logo meets NFCCP as typically applied to former logos. The multi-colored "5-seven" logo might barely scrape by since there is some discussion of it although that's not sourced and if it that content goes then any possible justification for that non-free use will go with it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.StevenSuperstar (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Video game Barnstar

---

A week ago I discovered to my horror that there was no article for Sayonara Wild Hearts. I'd started working on it, but a couple of minutes ago visited the page to check if an article had been created in the meantime... and it had, and to such great quality! Thanks so much for the high standard of writing and work put into the article! Neuroxic (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 12 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Neil Peart, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Ninth-generation video game consoles seems a bit of a mess and I'm not sure it should exist yet. It's caught up in this whole "Series X" vs "4th Generation" xbox naming too. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ugh. This relates to the discussion on the WT:VG about potential reorg of the generations. Things like the Intellivision console are not ninth generation, period. It will only be Xbox and PS5 and maybe the Switch. --Masem (t) 17:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I request you to close Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Ongoing_Removal:_Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests. the Nom is editwarring to close it with a clearly hostile and non neutral statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably time to close this. AIRcorn (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey M, saw you had made this change to the category schema; do you plan make the category edits that will be required to implement this change fully? If this change was discussed at WP:CSD, could you please point me to the discussion? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'm not fully done with the process. The discussion was at WT:VG --Masem (t) 19:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem, I just wanted to point out that although the talk page tab of this template is correctly directing to Template talk:Video games by country, if you click on the talk of the actual navbox itself (the "T" in the top left of the navbox as viewed on a desktop device) it directs to Template talk:1969 in video games... you might want to fix this. Richard3120 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thanks. --Masem (t) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem,

I'm currently involved in a content dispute with another editor, and I feel like it needs to go to either DRN or ANI. However, when I have gone to DRN in the past (not for this issue), I have been told that ANI is the more appropriate venue—but when I have gone to ANI, I have been told that it should be dealt with at DRN and the issue does not get resolved. This is because what started as a content issue morphed into a conduct issue. As such, I was hoping you might be able to tell me which would be the more appropriate place to take this dispute. I will try to give you as brief an overview as possible:

• An editor made a specific claim about a partucular source. I felt that this claim amounted to original research and asked him to provide sources that supported his interpretation.
• The editor in question has spent weeks either refusing to provide sources, or ignoring me when I asked him. A second editor who supported him has claimed they have no burden to prove the claim and that the responsibility rests with those who disagree with them.
• I have nevertheless provided four reliable and verifiable sources that directly contradict their interpretation of the original source. They have all been ignored, or the editors have claimed they prove nothing.
• In the past week, a new source has emerged. This was not available when the claim was first made. It supports a small part of what the editor first claimed, but certainly not everything. This editor now says the source proves that he was right all along and that his original claim was something completely different.

As much as this is a content dispute—and over a very minor issue—I feel like ANI is the most appropriate place to take it. This editor has engaged in original research and synthesis, has ignored his burden to prove his claims and has generally turned the discussion into a battleground because he cannot provide sources to support his claims, but refuses to admit it. He also has a reputation—and has previously been blocked—for wiki-lawyering, so I am concerned that if I go to ANI, he will deliberately drag the process out to try and deter admins from doing anything because they will have to wade through a wall of text. That's exactly what happened last time I went to ANI because of his hounding behaviour on the WikiProject.

What do you think I should do? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not seeing the type of actionable behavior that would be an ANI issue. This is definitely where you'd want dispute resolution of DRN -- or you can also bring the issue to WP:RS/N if it is a question about specific sources. --Masem (t) 06:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Masem. DRN sounds like the way to go—I'm hoping this editor will finally produce a source to support his interpretation and have someone else evaluate it, or acknowledge that he never had a source to begin with (which I suspect to be the case since it's a subject that I have specific, detailed knowledge about and cannot find any sources to support his claim).

However, I don't know much about RS/N. The dispute comes down to the interpretation of a source (which I have always found to be a thorny issue). Is that the sort of thing that they address? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there! I saw your edit summary and would like to ask you if you can move The Mole (TV series) to De Mol please? Neverrainy (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neverrainy: its been moved. I went to De Mol (TV series) as De Mol lists a number of people with that surname, and do not believe the TV show should have precedence over notably people. I did add the show though to that disamb. page. --Masem (t) 14:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem,

I saw that you had some input in the Overwatch League article and had an interest in video games in general. So with the new Call of Duty League having just started this weekend I was wondering if you were able to help out with the main league article and corresponding team articles. As I feel the league and corresponding articles could be really interesting and that they would really help more mainstream people find information on the new league.

Kind regards --Brandon Downes (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to double edit this and bother you but could you look at some the individual teams pages if you have the time. In particular Draft:London Royal Ravens which was moved back to draft because of lack of notability and independent sources and Los Angeles Guerrillas which is for some reason being redirected to the parent group who owns the team but literally has no information pertaining to it at all apart from being listed as a subsidary. I'm trying to get some of the other team pages finished but with the issues I've already had surrounding the other ones any advice and help would be greatfully appreciated.

Once again kind regards --Brandon Downes (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the London team, the Dot Esports site is independent of the leagues but maybe the reviewer thought the reliance on it was too much...? Its best to try to find some more sources from different RSes for them, probably focusing on the August-November 2019 timeframe when the teams had just been announced up to getting their branding. I looked around a bit but didn't find much for the London team but I wasn't digging that great for it. --Masem (t) 00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 28 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 62nd Annual Grammy Awards, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Jack Posobiec". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CatcherStorm ^talk 04:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 31 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Toss a Coin to Your Witcher, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the song "Toss a Coin to Your Witcher" from the Netflix television show The Witcher became a viral hit within days of the series' release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Toss a Coin to Your Witcher. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, I appreciate your efforts on the article and I don't know how to put this WP:POLITEY, but you are literally nuts for thinking the development section doesn't need to be sub-sectioned any more than it is. "Far too excessive breakdown"? In the state you want the section to be in, there are excessively-long paragraphs that not only make the section unreadable and difficult for the reader to navigate, but can easily be divided in subsections with multiple three-to-five-sentence paragraphs (I mean, look at the first paragraph!). Also, there is no excuse for information about the game's release, promotion and later versions being packed in the same section about the making of a video game, which is unrelated to release. The organization I just did was objectively cogent. HumanxAnthro (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had broken a 7 paragraph dev section into 4-5 additional sections with some sections with only one paragraph; that's excessive sectioning. That said, you are absolutely right that the release details should be its own section - this is actually a common breakout. But of the 5 remaining dev sections, there's no other logical break to make without creating one-paragraph sectioning which isn't really appropriate for development sections. --Masem (t) 05:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) Half of my subsections were two paragraphs or more.

(2) "The 5 remaining dev sections, there's no other logical break to make without creating one-paragraph sectioning which isn't really appropriate for development sections." What in the world do you mean "[not] appropriate for development sections"?

(3) Tell me where in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games having one-paragraph subsections in development sections (or, heck, anywhere) is prohibited.

(4) I don't know if you're aware of this, but there are one-paragraph sections in, like, millions of this site's six million articles. A couple of subsections were one-paragraph, nobody (even veteran editors) cares but yourself.

(5) You're version of the section, even with the release subsection, is still incredibly unreadable and NEEDS to be divided into more subsections, no matter if its three more or five more. No paragraph should go between five sentences, no section should last long. That you think doing any more organizing to make the article convenient to average readers is "excessive sectioning." I'm putting the article up for Featured article review if you do no further work on sub-sectioning the article.

(6) Release and the subsection about the "remix" versions shouldn't be subsections of the development section; they're not about the making of the original game, so they should be their own section.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep in mind, this article has been through copyedits and reviews for Featured Article status. The structure then was about the same as it was now. Also the advice about having too many short sections is in MOS:PARA. The other problem with your headers is that they were non-standard as well that do not follow the typical approach of VG articles. Now, fair enough, there's two paragraphs for "Writing" which I did section out further, but that leaves 3 para for the development which are of completely fair length; there is no strict advice on para length per WP:PARAGRAPH. And yes, Release should be an H2 with the remixes under that. (that is also VG standard because those are just additional releases). --Masem (t) 06:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"completely fair length"? Absolute baloney. There are up to 13 sentences jumbled into one paragraph, and most of them very long. But more, importantly nice try misrepresenting and cherrypicking bits of guideline and MOS pages to deceive me; the paragraph lengths actually do fail MOS:PARA, which specifically states that "paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read," and your paragraphs are well beyond that length. You also left out the part in WP:PARAGRAPH where it states "Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus." Also, both guidelines state "Short paragraphs and single sentences" should not be subsection-ed, not any one paragraph, you liar. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but standards for how Featured articles should be.... um..... change over time, and the time it was nominated was 11 years ago in 2008. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, what you have right now is perfectly fine. HumanxAnthro (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paragraph length is debatable. There's no guidance of what "overly long" is , and plenty of quality articles have paras on 8-10 sentences or so. It is a judgement call where the thought of a paragraph can be broken without losing the narrative line. Breaking up the paragraphs though was not the major issue, it was again how many new subsections were created and the choice of non-standard titles, not just for video games but for other creative works. The section titles do need to support a logical structure to the article as reflected in the TOC, so they should be concepts expected for a creative work, and not specific for the game. As I said, it is fair that "release" be split off, as well as the "writing" parts, but the rest remaining of the development is pretty much stuck as a general idea of development that can't readily be split into typical sections you'd fine. And even if you split the current three paragraphs to 5, a 5 paragraph section is absolutely acceptable. If it was 10 or more, absolutely I'd be looking for splits. --Masem (t) 14:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at this file? I'm wondering whether it might be simple enough to be ((PD-logo)) because it does only seem to be simple shapes and texts. If it does need to be non-free then I'm not sure if it can be kept. It's currently being used in two articles. The use in Religion in United States prisons#Catholicism appears to be the result of a merge/redirect of Saint Dismas Prison Ministry per Talk:Saint Dismas Prison Ministry#Proposed merger, but nobody seem to take into account that this changes the justification for non-free use. The second use is the result of transclusion by template into Catholic Church in the United States#Prisons which also doesn't take into account WP:NFCC. If the file can be converted to PD, then the cleanup is fairly simple; if not, then there's either PROD, FFD, or trying to explain things on the merged article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's too simple for US copyirhgt. The sun gradient is nothing overtly artistic to qualify by our standards. --Masem (t) 02:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this. I've converted the licensing to PD-logo. Could you take a peek at it to see that I didn't miss anything? Also, do you think something about this should be mentioned about this on the old article's talk page; there's really no way to justify way the file is being used in the two article's mentioned above if it did need to remain non-free, but maybe that's a moot point now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably would be worthwhile to drop a note that the image is consider too simple for copyright and thus has more liberal use now. --Masem (t) 04:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought about that, but it's a bit tricky to bring that up while not at the same time stating the non-free files shouldn't just be automatically assumed to be OK to move as part of merges/splits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Software companies established in 2020 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

I saw that you are very active at WP:WikiProject Video Games. Your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Please feel free to discuss at: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Advergame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yale Law Review (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Masem, it looks like you created a wiki page for me (Manveer Heir), which is wonderful, however I found some minor errors that I was wondering if we could fix so that inaccurate information about myself and my company Brass Lion Entertainment isn't spread. If you need citations for anything let me know. - My first job wasn't Raven it was actually as a programming intern at Big Huge Games in 2005. I moved to Raven shortly thereafter for full-time work. - Years active is 2005 not 2009. - Bryna Dabby Smith worked on Sleeping Dogs for Activison, not Watch Dogs for Ubisoft.

Hope those are things that are fixable - thanks so much.

KingCurryThunder (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Manveer Heir @KingCurryThundrReply[reply]

My bad on Smith's, that I misread (the sources had Sleeping Dogs, but was thinking Ubisoft and their "dog" title  :) I have found a source on the time at Big Huge + dates, so that works. If there's anything else, we just need a good reliable source (eg works like Wired, Polygon, Kotaku, Gamasutra, etc.). Also, I have asked members of the VG project to just keep an eye on on this page for vandal, for good reasons. Also , I pulled a free image off the GDC photostream for this, if you want to have a different picture that you are willing to offer under a free license (public domain or Creative Commons) we can add that too. --Masem (t) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the fixes. Couple errors remain - you list Ubisoft as a workplace for Bryna Dabby Smith but she never worked there (she was at Activision and EA). Here is a photo you can use from my IG that is me at the DICE Summit in 2019. The reference to hiring seem to come from the following line in the Game Informer Standing Up referenced article - "Brass Lion wants to actively hire developers of color and other diverse backgrounds" - that is not the same as hiring developers of color and other diverse backgrounds OVER Caucasians, but rather that we are just going to take care to make sure we are inclusive. The way you have phrased it right now it makes it seem like we are trying to exclude Caucasians, and given my history of harassment with Gamergate I don't want there to be a misconception. I'm not sure how to best give you a reliable source outside of pointing to the original text from Game Informer. Let me know if that's enough or not. Also, in the part about me working at Raven on Wolfenstein you say I moved from programmer to level designer, but I moved from programmer to game designer. Is a linkedin a valid source? - KingCurryThunder (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I got those fixed, including the wording around hiring. I'll need to see what we can do with that picture. --Masem (t) 21:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me know if you need the original or best way to get you a picture. I have all the originals on my phone KingCurryThunder (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have a registered account and one that matches Twitter/instragram, the easiest way is to have you upload that yourself at the Commons upload wizard (your account creditial on en.wiki work there too), marking it as your own work and making sure its under one of the free-as-in-speech licenses offered. If you do it that way, then I just need the file: name you uploaded it with to put it in place.

If you don't want to do it like that (which I can understand why given GG issues) then I would need to upload it and then have you follow through with the instructions on this page WP:CONSENT about emailing that you are the photo's owner and given permission to be used as a free license for WP. If you want to do that way, let me know so I can upload the file first and then you'll have the parts in that form letter to include in the email.

I do want to make sure you are fine with releasing that image in a free-as-in-speech license. We do get people that want us to use their images but with restrictions like for non-commercial use only, which we can't do. --Masem (t) 17:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a different photo which I am good with being a free-as-in-speech license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manveer_Heir_Headshot_2019.png KingCurryThunder (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perfect, added. And while we don't have a page yet for Brass Lion, I'm going to presume that when Corner Wolves gets closer to release we'll have more to pull to create a standalone article on both the game and the studio, and in the latter case, you can think ahead (not needed now) if you'd like any staff photos in the same manner for that. (helps with visual identity for studio pages whenever we can show the ppl behind that). --Masem (t) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It says it's marked the image for speedy deletion cuz of copyright cuz I also use the image on my twitter. But obviously it's my image. What needs to be done to make sure it isn't deleted (I am a complete wiki edit n00b)? And good note about the Brass Lion page - we have some stuff up on the website but yes as we get further along with games released we will think about useful photos that will make your life easier. KingCurryThunder (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not your fault, its likely an editor there being precautionary - people upload someone ELSE's twitter images all the time thinking "free as in beer" use. I've got a watch on that file and will help with any further issues should there be concerns. --Masem (t) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And working to get that undeleted now... --Masem (t) 20:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KingCurryThunder: Okay, apparently we still need you to verify your identity and confirm you have the copyright on the images. There is a form email at Commons:Email templates/Consent (or the interactive generator) that will be processed by high-level moderators to validate your ID (they can't take your word on-wiki) and clear the image for use. --Masem (t) 20:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I verified and they readded the photo, it's safe to add back onto the page (note: before it was deleted on the page it still had the old caption from the previous photo that said Heir at GDC 2015, so when re-added you will need to change that caption or delete all together) KingCurryThunder (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it, restored and updated the caption (2019 I assume?) Sorry about that mess. --Masem (t) 14:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions about The Mandalorian article, and might have interest in the current RfC: Regarding Darksaber Mention in The Mandalorian Plot Summary. You might be interested in adding your voice to the RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Masem. What do you think about WP:FREER as applied to this particular file? The non-free was uploaded in February 2018, but someone upoaded File:Chimerarachne NT.jpg later that same year which does appear to be a free equivalent. It's not a photo per se, but an equivalent image which seem to be a drawing of some sort as to how the spider actually looked. I'm not sure that a photo of the spider preserved in amber is really needed anymore. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My issue is how scientifically accurate the rendered version is given its coming off a blog , rather than a paper. This might be a case where for assuredity of scientific reliable sourcing that the render can't be considered equivalent. --Masem (t) 02:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understand. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at WT:NFCC with respect to some possible svg issues regarding football logos? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Larry Tesler, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 05:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Mark Cerny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Way of the Warrior

The Haunting of Villa Diodati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Big Finish

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 23 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mike Hughes (daredevil), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 16:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a lot of duplicate citation in this article, the November 27ish Pat Graham Associated Press story is duplicated in maybe five or so citations. Should I just pick one of them and merge them all into that and make sure there is an archived version? Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that would make sense. --Masem (t) 17:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay I will let it settle out a little bit then do some combining and shuffling of refs. Kees08 (Talk) 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for helping break the log jam in the BLPN discussion. I found this comment especially helpful. - MrX 🖋 14:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, did you and Alex21 have reached a consensus about these images? Alex21 looks like he doesn't know what screenshot and poster mean, because he removed all of the images, including posters with billings. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 16:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll have to point to where Alex21 recently removed a poster-type image. I'm looking at removals from the last 24hr and see screenshot removals that would be seemingly appropriate, but no posters or specific promotional material...--Masem (t) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Episodes such as "Kill the Moon", which you showed as an example, and all of the Series 7 episodes... −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 14:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, and now that I remember at least for the Mercy one, way back there was discussion on the Gunslinger to show the makeup facets (hence using it instead of that poster that all S7 ones had). --Masem (t) 14:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked timestamps on discussions and those all appear *BEFORE* we got to agreement on your page. So I would feel free to revert all those cases (the ones with the BBC posters, singular promo images, and screenshots that had discussion like A Town Called Mercy) that were before roughly 22:00 on 21 February 2020. I can't see any removals Alex did after that point that are against that. --Masem (t) 14:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly, thank you. This just seems to be a case of SebJam hounding my edits and making accusations. Series 7 is the only series with episode posters, as far as I can tell; the rest of the images do not meet the threshold of the NFCC policy. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except you then went and reverted the readding of the one on A Town Called Mercy [39] which is a case of a image where the caption calls out to a discussion in the body as to why it is being used, and well beyond "to display an important scene in the episode". The choice of makeup and costume for the Gunslinger is the subject of discussion in the body, and to minimize non-free, it was opted to use that instead of the poster that existed for the episode which was otherwise non-descript. That's a case you better no remove without initiating discussion if there has been some level of thought to tie the image to the prose (beyond the basic plot). --Masem (t) 00:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies; I believe that was an accidental click when I had to go through my 15 notifications, hence my thanks notification I sent for your revert. I completely agree; the Series 7 images can and should remain. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, I am pretty sure there's likely no mass reverts either way coming but I'd just be case on future works to clean up. --Masem (t) 01:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Although, "enraged editor" on another editor's part is a bit far. They might want to keep an eye on that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]