I don't think there really is a pronoun trouble, but as I explained in the edit summary, it says "this type of list" but does not mention which one. I believe that tag is appropriate.174.3.110.108 (ta--lk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will admit that I reverted partly because of the editors tone, but more so because while the rant was on the topic of the essay, it was not at all about editing or improving the page, and I could see no reason for a link to the editors blog. Cheers. Beach drifter (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to wait for a bit more development information to emerge, but ok. I'll try to get on that soon. I really need to finish Tales' article before Devil's Playhouse begins its run. -- Sabre (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole load of potential development information being posted by TTG's people, namely Jordan and Stemmle, in this private preorder forum on their site. How would one cite that sort of stuff? They're making the comments in an official capacity so that negates the "forum posts aren't reliable" issue, but if you haven't bought the game, you can't see it to verify. -- Sabre (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this is commentboy123. I appreciate what you are doing with the article, but I do not see where you have included the cost of making the video. I think it's important to at least give the approximate value instead of leaving it blank, because in this case it is very unusual that OK Go would spend so much money on music videos. Also, I have a valuable reference to back up my information. But well, that's my opinion. :) I don't mind anybody leaving it blank if you don't feel the need. And wow, like every single article you edited is a Featured, Good Article, nice job! Commentboy123 (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 53 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on, but the Complete list of RB DLC has some formatting issue that's causing a no include and some extra content to pop up. My guess would be it's related to the 2010 article but I'm not sure how to confirm that. Not too familiar with the transclusions you set up. Wanna take a look when you get a chance? Thanks!-- TRTX ^{T / C} 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is my proposal worth making as a guideline? CTJF83 chat 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2010, the project has:

131 Featured Articles 36 Featured Lists 12 Featured Topics

36 A-Class Articles 384 Good Articles 5 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: VG Task forces Featured editor: Sabre

---

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

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look I dislike edit warring, so I am going to leave this here.

An AFD has the consensus to delete the page, it maybe be an old AFD, but I feel it should still count, if not then I will request a new one. 81.156.174.107 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. I'm guessing your experienced in non-free image so I would appreciate if you could provide a second opinion about the use of File:Simpsons 8F04.png in the Homer Defined article. There is a dispute between me and another editor about whether or not the image meets WP:NFCC#8; see Talk:Homer Defined/GA1. Regards, Theleftorium 12:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would like to help me write up plot summaries; it's been a while since I've played, so... :> - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the wrong edits; I didn't double-check my sources and had this confused with another title. When the IP changed the "Shelby" to "killer" I thought s/he was attempting to point out that any of them could be the killer. I didn't realize s/he was trying to remove "spoilers".

Also, why is the ending where all the 4 characters alive described in such detail? Does any source actually suggest that this is significant? I think it is WP:UNDUE to give one ending such credit and WP:OR/WP:NPOV to select the one where everyone arrives. Not to make this WP:FANCRUFT, but either other endings should be mentioned or none at all. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who the killer is, "is" important. it could be added in the plot and explain multiple endings in the ending section.

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't responded at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Starfleet_ranks_and_insignia_.28again.29 because I'm hoping that other interested parties will become involved. If just the two of us move forward on it, it'll blow up if implemented. I am watching. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to our discussions at WT:N regarding the notability of lists, I thought you might like to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews (3rd nomination). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your !vote there makes almost no sense. I'd guess I'm missing something? Did you see that there are whole books on the topic (provided above in the discussion)? Also, was your taboo thing a joke? I guess I just assumed you were from the West, but I find it hard to believe you could be on-line and be able to read English and miss the traditional issues with Jews (and Christians) and LGB issues. See Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible as a starting point... Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like you are either being inappropriately sarcastic or didn't do any reading before !voting. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out what articles needs to reviewed for readability and grammar? Thisuser (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find one list here.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of worlds in the Kingdom Hearts series about this list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as File:Lego-david-bowie.jpg, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Try my chocolate, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • I don't like Sonic X • Nargaroth rocks)} 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, I've updated the retention, here. Hope that's all okay - rst20xx (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and now added DJ Hero 2, and updated for the release date of WoR - rst20xx (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Humble Indie Bundle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 ^talk 16:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Portal2 coop characters.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vaypertrail (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Portal2-testchamber.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vaypertrail (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Portal2 coop characters.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Vaypertrail (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Portal2-testchamber.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Vaypertrail (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop restoring the images until you correct the image licenses. The current tag you have on them is for "only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media.".--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the other "does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context".--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Humble Indie Bundle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, sorry about that. I'd added the link a while back after an editor had stated that Rosanna was "human" a couple of times. The whole section is much improved now, so if I WP:OVERLINK please do WP:TROUT me ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 13:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the Criticism of X discussions like it was some great soap opera. Something confusing to the subject. Does WP:SS allow for recursive usage and how many recursions? I can see how some editors would think the second recursion would be amounting to WP:COATRACK. The Criticism of Judaism article seemed to be created in accordance with WP:criticism essay which, from it's first implementation in 2006 by Hyacinth, proposed all articles have a Criticism section for NPOV purposes. But then that criticism article became it's own WP:SS article making it a second level recursion. Should we forbid more than one recursive usage of WP:SS? Should the WP:SS page at least have some added language on recursive usage? Alatari (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pssstttt... Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_songs_in_Guitar_Hero:_Warriors_of_Rock&redirect=no and click Edit. I've got it all figured out, when the time comes to separate the pages, just erase the redirection markup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantyO (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rock Band 3, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you reverted the vandalism on this article just a few minutes ago (I thought I'd done it, but the edit history shows you, so I guess you got there first). I'm no Wikipedia expert, so please bear with my lack of experience, but shouldn't the visibility of those edits be supressed somehow? They contain links, claiming to be to downloads of the games. Chances are that either they're illegal downloads or, probably more likely, they're links to malware. Either way, do we want them sitting around in the edit history with the prominent edit summary "get game here"?

Tcnuk (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((rfctag))

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC) (Using ((Please see)))[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Portal2 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted my "good faith" edits once to often, Masem, and your recent reversal of my edit at WP:Article titles is hard to fathom[1]. If the edit is in good faith, all the more reason to let it stand and to discuss it; you should know by now that there is more than "faith" alone behind the purpose of my edits.

I can't control what you do, but all I know is that for a proposal to get accepted, it must see the light of day, be discussed, and some sort of compromise reached. Simply reverting without any detailed discussion amounts to little more than stonewalling. This is not a simple or straightforward proposal: I am sticking my neck out, and seeking support, or at the very least, constructive criticism not blanket rejection, which is of no value to both us.

With regards to merit of the proposal itself, if you do not wish it to succeed , do say so and why: don't hide behind vague generalisations of consensus. Please don't act as long distance sniper or unspoken detractor, otherwise we will never be able to work towards effective guidance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways of gaining attention to a working proposal for an addition of a section to existing p/g - the RFC tag, listing on CENT, blurbs on the Pumps, etc. Introducing a significantly radical change to a p/g while discussion is ongoing is not helpful. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm having the same problem with Masem; I provided good info on a popular part of a game article and a reference that's not only accurate, but is easily 100% verifiable, yet he still continues to refuse to accept it. Seriously, man, if you doubt the "validity" of the citation, just try connecting to one of the servers. If you still don't believe it after you see it with your own eyes, I don't know what to tell you. Citations can come in other forms than news articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.66.246 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that the image you removed from the above article was replaced by another editor, and has subsequently been nominated for deletion. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I added what is likely to be a more clear reference to the L4D2 article involving 9-20 player servers over the 8 normal maximum. Nearly a 3rd of the active player base in the game now plays on these servers, so I think they are important enough to warrant mention; the reference now lists an active list of every active L4D2 server and ranks them in order of activity. If you glance it over, you'll notice from the very top to the bottom, a huge portion of servers now support large games ranging from 10 player co-op to 20 player Versus + additional slots for spectators.

I really have no idea what more I could cite in this instance, or how you could get more impartial than an active scan of the list. I just think it's an important point to bring up that the PC version can support larger games and as the point of a Wikipedia article is to inform people of things they might not otherwise know, think it's valid being there. While as I said a huge portion of the player base is on these servers, many casual fans are not likely to realize that, as they are only accessible via Steam Groups, console IP connect, or the OpenServerBrowser command. The source I am currently citing will provide anyone interested in this aspect with a wide list of IPs, however, allowing anyone who wishes to play to connect to one easily on the PC version of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlazingOwnager (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In thinking about it, you are right re: the Bonus Costumes section for God of War. In fact, the God of War (series) page also doesn't require this. Getting a tad too fannish. Thanks for the pointer. Spartancourage (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I've broken down edits for Kratos (God of War) and explained the rationale on the Talk page. I think Caribbean~H.Q. means well, but many of the additions were a tad too fannish and retained speculation, were off topic etc. Hopefully we can resolve this without any edit wars.

Regards Spartancourage (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good editing job. Nicely done, Masem. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are encountering a significant disagreement as to your interpretation of synthesis, Masem. I think we should confer in article discussion prior to making any more changes. I've reverted out the application of the different Doctors that flash on the screen, as well as their numbering, based upon that disagreement; I've explained my reasons in discussion. Let's resolve it there, so we don't fall into a pattern of edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MASEM, you have a new message on the NFC Talk Page GWillHickers (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative to a simple affirmation of permissible gazetteer content is itemizing exceptions to exclusions -- it would be multiple insertions of "....except for gazetteer content" in WP:NOT and WP:N where deletionists have seen, see now, and will see a rationale for excluding it. patsw (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't belong in WP:NOT and it doesn't belong in WP:N, where does it belong?

• The criterion for inclusion of gazetteer content is verifiability from a reliable source for geographical information.

Or do you want a new guideline specific to gazetteer content? patsw (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously considering filing an RfC on User:Gavin.collins. Unfortunately, "being an obstacle in every discussion I've ever seen him contribute to for years on end" isn't against policy. Can you think of a better method for attempting to get it through to him that he actually has to listen to people and compromise, not just bluster on for years on end until everyone gets sick of the matter and the issue is abandoned? --erachima talk 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several months and a draft ahead of you: User:Masem/draft though it needs trimming and editing, please feel free to do so. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thing that pushed me over the edge on the matter was earlier today realizing that A. he has 2000 edits just to WT:FICT and B. he is involved in half a dozen arguments at present, and is the primary sticking point against consensus in every single one of them. --erachima talk 14:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your draft, while I agree it needs some copyediting, you appear to have nailed the problems down quite well. RFC/U requires two certifications of dispute/attempted resolution, correct? --erachima talk 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if Gavin Collin's participation in policy and guideline debates might lead to something like this. I agree with much of what is written in that draft. Fences&Windows 11:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - He never lets go. [2]This had to be moved from the actual arbitration discussion to the talk page by a member of the committee.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that myself. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that comment by Gavin Collins to be highly disruptive. Involving himself in that arbitration on a fraught topic at such a late stage to try to push a policy proposal that has already failed is astounding. Fences&Windows 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any additional input from the RPG/D&D community, just let me know - although it looks like you have everything important covered already. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's at it again! Here - Interjecting completely unrelated title souring issues into another discussion. Very disruptive.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any geniune complaints about me personally, bring them to my talk page, and we can disucss them in good faith there. Otherwise, I won't view any RFC in good faith, just ad hominem attack page. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up a new discussion about this here. Since you were involved in the old one, I figured I should invite you over. Prime Blue (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Comments would be appreciated here. Prime Blue (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain to me why you would undo my edit to Blink (Doctor Who) such that it would make the plot synopsis less correct. Forteblast (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tar-11-opening.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, ok, maybe it looks like Jimbo's now the managing director of The Guardian. It's just an experiment. OK from copyright perspective? Tony (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link would be a good idea, here. Thanks. Tony (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Masem, you're right. They may remove the logo, anyway, but I tried your left/right suggestion. Tony (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...is several keep voters performing an Alphonse and Gaston routine after stating that there are third-party reliable sources covering a topic but are reluctant to actually add citations to the article itself. patsw (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Proposed ammendment to WP:NFF. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it to the upcoming songs list. Dunno why I didn't put it there in the first place :) User:Danhgilmore —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi and thank you for taking the time to review it! I think that I corrected the issues you brought up. Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the art games entry. I was in the process of added the additional sources when you reverted the changes. I will re-enter them with the various sources that cite them as artistic games, and/or exhibit them. My interest in them is I am writing about them as part of my PhD on art games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.178.8 (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're finished with this draft page, can you please delete it? I nearly MFDed it for being a fake article about someone's Survivor fanfic (and there's a hell of a lot of that shit going around in userspace). Stifle (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm hunting out WP:NOT#WEBHOST violations and this came up by the by. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I was camping on this guy's contribs, knowing he was going to keep going... you got to him first! *g* Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering, since you had prior involvement in the article, if you would be interested in helping give it a GA push. I think I've found as much as I can for reception and development, so it's just a matter of copyediting and organization. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, at the risk of being accused of canvassing, you need to weigh in on this [3] as the effort to change our WP:Article titles policy into a notability/content policy continues.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a review there- feel free to ping me once you're done/if you have any replies, though I will be watching. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted, well done. I've left some thoughts about improvements that could be made before taking the article to FAC. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the email and I'm chatting to Dino Patti about the release of some images now. I'll keep you posted. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GA review and the image check. If you're successful, I may want to try to approach Valve about that since they're their own publisher for the most part and see what approach you took with content (that would free up a lot of images on several FA pages). Still need the copyediting for FA, may try again in a few days to see. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem I'm just curious, but is there any official policy about this topic? If not I feel it's something kinda needed :) WikiKiwi ^(askme) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BioShock Infinite, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about some of my edits there, they were pretty silly. You are doing a good job with the article, you seem on top of it and any issues, keep it up. ValenShephard (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just letting you know, images are not usually done by originality for video games. if it's released in the US, we use the English cover. you might have gotten the idea from the anime and manga articles. anime and manga are more famous for it's region unlike Dissidia: final fantasy. so the english image should do. the English one had all 10 playable protagonist except for the unlockable. so the English one should be better for the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous volunteer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor I though you might like to know there is a new set available for work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor/20100826. Hope to see you there. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rb track pack v1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, you're usually quite well informed about most of the TTG/former LucasArts people games, I don't suppose you know of any good development sources for The Devil's Playhouse? I'm struggling, I'm only finding a few workable sources. I really should have followed the same as TMI and stayed with the article from the first day... -- Sabre (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments on MickMacNees notability proposal. A Do 228 is not a "small" aircraft. It is an airliner that falls into the 5,700 - 13,999 kg MTOW weightband. There is a lot of chaff to wade through in the AfD discussion, but the basic reasons for notability are worst accident in Nepal, worst accident for airline, 4th worst involving the Do-228, and (possibly) the number of deaths. There was plenty of input from the community, who overwhelmingly decided that they wanted the article to stay. Mjroots (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all of these reasons are never used for notability assessment of other topics; size, # of fatalities, location, etc. We need significant coverage in secondary sources, otherwise its just a datapoint. This article is the type that would be best at Wikinews annd linked from Wikipedia on an article about air disasters for a region or year, but not as a standalone article. The problem with that AFD is that any admin is rarely going to override the strong majority there even if the reasoning is wrong. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have the coverage. The accident happened in Nepal. Sources used come from India, the UK and the USA. Community consensus seems to be that these accidents are notable, which is why they get kept at AfD and the decision is endorsed at DRV. Maybe the problem is that WP:NOTNEWS is not as widely supported as it once was. This has certainly happened with WP:AIRCRASH - Consensus can change over time. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of news sources, but nothing that goes into depth; its all reporting, not analysis. They are not secondary sources as per the GNG. As there hasn't been any coverage of any significant note after the accident (after checking google news), such cases fail WP:NTEMP. There *could* be more after that accident report, but considering what I usually see after a major 100+ passenger accident and this, its doubtful it is more than a blip. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is where it just gets bizarre, and where admins really need to start paying attention in these debates. Mjroots claims it is:

• the "worst accident in Nepal" - OK. Where is the citation for that? It's not in the article, and it's not mentioned in the Afd. I have in the past voted keep for 'worst accident in country' type crashes, as this is usually remembered. But it's pretty clear from this that it was not even the worst accident in Nepal this decade. There have been at least 14 other accidents in the history of Nepal which were more fatal than this one according to that source.

• the "worst accident for airline" - Sounds impressive doesn't it? Bar the fact that the airline Agni Air has only been in existence since 2006, and it has just 5 planes. Far from being the worst, it infact appears to be the only accident for this airline. Agian, AIRCRASH is pretty clear, if this is the only claim to notability, it does not warrant an article.

I agree with Mjroots, this is most definitely chaff - stuff thrown out there to confuse and distract opponents! MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof by verbosity --Mike Cline (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, First of all I think that notification of an RfC/U in places where the "U" has been involved is appropriate and I don't believe there is any violation of WP:CANVAS, though I'd be willing to listen to your thoughts on that. Secondly, I think reverting two different users on the same topic isn't best of all possible ideas. You might just be wrong you know... :-) Hobit (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. In case you didn't know, Guitar Hero is up for Featured Topic Review. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a supp related comment by Wizardman that you should probably address. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem... as you know, I have been involved in a long dispute over notability, inclusion critera and other issues relating to List of Masonic buildings. From my perspective, the problems with that list have now been replicated into a whole group of lists. But I need a reality check.

Recently created are: List of Elks buildings, List of Knights of Columbus buildings, List of Knights of Pythias buildings and List of Odd Fellows buildings). Would you take a look at these list articles, and advise me on whether you think they are notable topics or not? I think these are all cases where two notable topics are being combined to form a new topic, without properly establishing that the new topic is notable... essentially a WP:NOT#Inherited violation... but I am not sure.

Essentially, I think these could be discussed as a group instead of one single article... If we need to discuss it at the AfD, we can talk about the generalized topic of "buildings associated with fraternal order X", or even the more generalized "Ys associated with X"

Would you give me your take on these articles? Am I completely off base or am I correct in thinking that these are problematic? Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about them, but my internet thoughts are they are a problem. I don't think there's anything specially inherient about a building used as a meeting house by a frat order. If they actually built that building for that purposes I would probably be more open. Also, while the lists say "notable buildings", a few I spot checked has stubs and barely-notable aspects beyond the NRHP listing. I'm thinking that any sort of lists based on these is going to come from the NRHP side; a meeting hall for a frat order is just nothing of note by itself, but NRHP buildings uses as fraternal order buildings is a different story. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP tie is the problem here, and why I am hesitant to AfD these lists... these lists are really a combination of two topics... "NRHP buildings" and "Fraternal Order X"... If we approach these lists as being sub-lists of NRHP buildings, then I can see a (week) argument for saying they are notable... The National Registry of Historic Places is a notable topic... and I think it is proper to transfer that notability to List of all NRHP buildings. I understand how such a list would have WP:SIZE problems. I have absolutely no problem dividing that list up into manageable chunks... provided that the division is done in a way that does not change the underlying topic (by state for example). So the question here is... does adding the fraternal order aspect change the underlying topic away from simply being a sub-division of "List of all NRHP buildings". I think it does. Thus, the lists are no longer merely sub-articles, but are actually new topics that need to establish their own notability. That means we need sources that discuss "buildings associated with fraternal order X" (and I suspect such sources do not exist).

If, on the other hand we approach these lists as being sub-lists of the article on Fraternal Order X, then there is no justification for the list at all. We are clearly taking the notability of the order and attaching it to a another topic... buildings... which is exactly what WP:NOT#INHERITED says we should not do.

Is this sound reasoning? Or am I off base? Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested before that the natural grouping is the NRPH, and given that, the subgrouping there would likely be by-state. Per-use really makes no sense, though it is completely fair to say in a brief list description that it is a frat org. house, blah blah. I do think that within the frat org. articles there could be lists of buildings constructed specifically by them or specifically for that purpose, but not ones surplanted for them. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. It helps. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here goes. Being very picky, as it seems the FAC people were too. From the development section-

• "struct Jensen with inspiration" What?
• "his own hand as programming in Visual Basic" Not the best phrase
• "Jensen had only" Repetition of "Jensen"
• "himself also dissatisfied" who was also?
• "he realized that" It was British English, wasn't is? "realised" is preferred
• "they did not want to commit to any major publishers, they wanted" repetition- a semi-colon would be better if you kept this wording. How about "they did not want to commit to any major publishers; the team wanted"
• "became a retail title." had become? Doesn't make sense otherwise.
• "would deter the" Not sure "deter" is the best word
• "the game due to it not fitting well in the context of the game;" the game, the game, the game
• "determine what the meaning of the game is" determine the game's meaning?
• "Jensen used inspiration of several films" from?
• "a forest to the city to an abstract environment" a forest but the city?
• "considering that his sound arrangements" not the best phrase
• "be very adapt at" You mean "adept", but I think "capable" would be a better word

Hope that helps. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there.. I loved Limbo, and I want to help with copyediting (I saw your request at the Guild, and I've done lots of CEs -- I'm an English teacher by day). How close are you to FAC? (I find it most useful to copyedit after all the research and content issues are resolved.) Let me know when I should bust out with the red pen! Scartol • Tok 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I may have some time this weekend, but if you don't hear from me by Wednesday 29 September, drop me a reminder. Scartol • Tok 02:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I've not checked into White Knuckles yet but the source you posted [4] may suffer from reliability issues. Particularly it's identification of White Knuckles as One Shot is made in reference to This Too Shall Pass (song) being One Shot which we have reliable sourcing to prove erroneous. Unfortunately most of the other articles I see referring to One Shot do so citing New York Magazine as source leaving them with the same issues. I've no intention of removing the entry, just asking that if you find a better source before I do could you consider changing it? Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart.Jamieson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that none of the other videos listed have references to assure they are one shot, it's difficult to dispute a reliable source that actually asserts this. Remember, in This Too video, it was other sources that said it was one shot, but eventually when they talked to band directly, found the issue. Here, the band and director is saying it. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I agree about the lack of sources for other videos - and we really do need to start culling out unsound One Shots from the list - but I never seem to have the time, I just try and catch out any I know are not one shots as they are added unsourced.

The problem I had with the first source is that although Tim Nordwind is quoted - he doesn't mention it being one shot; he does state which take they decided to use but it's no more clear than the early quotes about which times This Too ran through the sequence successfully. The magazine then uses this to make the claim that the video was one shot. The new Gizmondo cite is much better because it completely revolves around difficulties of actually doing one shot.

Having finally watched the video it looks like there may be some Digital compositing to improve the final effect, but it will be difficult to find a source that actually confirms this. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Talk:Flesh and Stone.
Message added 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Let's see how he responds to this. I hope that he realizes that if he can trust anyone to align with him on the issues he fights on, it's me.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I just wanted to let you know that you forgot to add your signature here. Cheers! Location (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Knuckles, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox, which currently contains an off-the-cuff, first draft of the difference between "secondary source" and "third party". I'm sure there are better examples than what's occurred to me. Feel free to improve (or to suggest a title for the WP: namespace). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem/survivor-test, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Masem/survivor-test and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Masem/survivor-test during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.. First off, thanks for all the research and/or coordination work you did to make Portal an FA. I'm working on a project and I'm finding that page supremely useful.

Since I didn't see any mention in the article, I'll assume the answer is no, but perhaps the following was addressed in a less-than-reliable source to which you can point me? I wonder if you found anything addressing the likely connection between the protagonist's name "Chell" and the Shell concept in computing? (Or a Shell account?)

Cheers! Scartol • Tok 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting regularly pelted and stunned in Afd's by this:

• There's no precedent for this, therefore the article should be deleted.
• You are citing a precedent for this article and we ignore that because of WP:Other Stuff Exists, therefore the article should be deleted.

I don't have a problem with obvious cases, but in marginal cases, it useful to see to the extent to which WP:N, WP:V, etc. was applied to articles which have been included. My question to you is do see arguments for delete excessively and inappropriately use WP:OSE or otherwise reject past editing practices as irrelevant to a current AfD? patsw (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put together a short summary of the principles from the list RFC where there appears to be consensus. I wanted to invite a small number of people to look at it before figuring out a next step (whether that's to invite more people, to work on another RFC, or to scrap what I've written altogether). Take a look at User:Shooterwalker/Lists. Note the point of the summary I wrote isn't to re-open the discussion, but to ask "does this describe the RFC"? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping... :) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So you know, I've started the process of closing the list RFC at this section. Thanks for your participation! Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

I have started the GAN review for Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock at Talk:Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock/GA1. I'm still working through it (doubt I'll find much more), but will notify you on that page when I'm finished. In the meantime you can fix any existing issues. If you could return the favor and assess 1-2 C/B class requests of mine at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests that'd be great. --Teancum (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Title italics via Infobox VG has been there for a while, has collected some support, and the closest thing to opposition is a "what is this all about?". If you have the wherewithal to make it happen, I would say it's probably valid to go ahead. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Masem. Can you review Dragon Quest for A-class assessment? Its been up for review since May and I just want to get it over with. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rock-band-3-keyboard-controller.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I read your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters, and I think I'm more in agreement than my replies indicate. Expanding on my objections:

• You're correct that copyvio from external sources is treated more expediently. This merged list would usually not be G12'd. The ((Copied)) template is seeing wider use, but few users – among them WP:Copyright problems regulars, whose time is better spent there – fix them.
• While the character information may be better presented in a list, a user should not be able to gain an advantage by boldly merging or splitting. No consensus should result in reversion to the original state.
• The combination of these two points means that a sloppy and premature merger creates work that becomes useless if the merger is reversed.

I appreciate that you were trying to discuss based on the merits, but the initial merger was borderline disruptive. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

link --- didn't know if this was useful to you, but I thought it'd be a fun read anyway. --Teancum (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and Metacritic's Xbox 360 page for the game actually shows a total of four reviews thus far, which might help. --Teancum (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a quick look the tag I chose for this file? Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 2 — 3rd Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2010, the project has:

134 Featured Articles 40 Featured Lists 12 Featured Topics

36 A-Class Articles 446 Good Articles 5 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: New article announcements and article requests Featured editor: Deckiller

---

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an RfC/U on Xanderliptak. Since you have attempted to deal with the concerns that I raise, I have mentioned you in the RfC. The RfC is not yet certified and may not be; currently I am the sole signatory, and any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". But I thought you should be made aware. Any feedback will, of course, be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, I can see there were more replies. How can we (I) start a community wide discusstion about that topic?TalkToMe_c^intelati 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 5 days, and I was wondering if you could reply to my comment on the FLC page, since the nomination is nearly going on a month, if need be you can reply to the other editors for follow up comments. Afro (Talk) 03:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been well over a week and my comment hasn't been addressed, I would like to pull you back for further discussion as the FLC has gone on a month now. Afro (Talk) 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you accept my friend request on Xbox Live? The gamertag's granty0. Please reply. Thanks, grantyO (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter came up earlier. --Kizor 13:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I was following the recent discussions on the Notability talk page and decided to explore the class-specific notability guidelines idea raised by DGG via this essay. Any thoughts?--Mike Cline (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source - can't find any press on it, but xbox.com shows it as released on Games on Demand as of 11/2/2010. Just thought that might be worth noting. --Teancum (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mhiji (talk · contribs) has moved a large number of season episode lists. Since you were the editor who boldly inserted the section into WP:NC-TV, I though you should be informed of the discussion at NC-TV initiated by Mhiji's actions. —Farix (t | c) 03:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you goof in that source. Sarujo (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I personaly think we should have seperate articles for these Classics HD titles. They are on a different console, have their own trophies, release dates, etc. Besides, Sony is planning to keep making these remake titles, so we should have seperate articles for them. But thats just my opinion anyway. Palms15 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I read your comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Cartoon_Sexuality

The Dennis material was responded to in the Animation World Network article that was written as a response to Dennis's comments. In particular, with the Pinky and the Brain stuff, the author of the response said that the Dennis comments were "interesting"

I understand that WP:Due is a consideration. Maybe it could help to reduce the number of sentences describing the Dennis material (while leaving in the sentence about the response from AWN) so that the body of the material is more balanced? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I read your comments on User:TheRealFennShysa's page (Posted by User:JDDJS). As per the discussion page at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Cartoon_Sexuality, the discussion at WP:RS had veered into WP:DUE debate - which the WP:RS page wasn't designed for.
• The WP:RS discussion did not and could not establish whether Dennis is WP:UNDUE for any particular article. WP:DUE debates are on an article by article basis, with decisions made on talk pages. If you want a wide range of participation for a WP:DUE issue, then an RFC can be issued.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind sourcing that for me?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin WhisperToMe (talk) is adament about adding sections about the possible homosexuality of the cartoon characters below. These sections are all based on the opinions of one man, JP Dennis, in one paper he wrote. Dennis is a gay man himself who seems to write exclusively about gay issues, so in my opinion, it's not surprising that he sees homosexuality where there is none. Also, there are already complete articles regarding this topic (LGBT themes in comics, LGBT themes in speculative fiction). If you believe these sections would place undue weight on this topic (which I believe is a non-issue), please comment on the talk pages below, otherwise WhisperToMe will add these sections back. Thanks in advance for your input.

Scooby-Doo (character) (talk), Shaggy Rogers (talk), Daphne Blake (talk), Velma Dinkley (talk), Pinky and the Brain (talk), Heffer Wolfe (talk) and Yogi Bear (talk). Judgeking (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JDDJS said he's going to start a general post about the Dennis source at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories noticeboard - please keep your eyes peeled. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. After clicking on your userpage from the SP (Season 13) FAC, I saw from your userpage that you are a fellow MSTie. You might be interested in this discussion that I started at the WikiProject Television page about a possible MST3K task force. If you know of anyone else who might be interested, please feel free to spread the word, as I'm looking for input! — Hunter Kahn 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider this article Wikipedia:notable "Villisca, Iowa Axe Murders"? It has a fair amount of references but they are mostly based off one site, and several paranormal investigation groups. No news article are sourced. Cheers Kyle1278 02:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is an easy solution--the house is asserted to be on the National Register of Historic places. If so, rewrite the article to be primarily about the house. Additionally a multiple murder such as this might very well be notable--as you say, news sources for the period need to be checked. (The present article seems to have unsourced opinion and a POV about the murder.) (I happened to be here about the matter below, and noticed this.) DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the final suggestion I made at my argument at a current deletion review , [5] on Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist. Not canvassing-- I had a divided opinion myself on the question, and have no idea what view you will think about that if you decide to have a view. . DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edits on Airplane!, stating that my edit of the movie implying the war they kept flashing back to was World War II was speculation. With all due respect, it's not speculation, it's a fact. The movie was a direct parody of Zero Hour!, a well-documented fact (already on the page) with the filmmakers on the DVD commentary track explicitly stating so. ***In Zero Hour!, the character was "Ted Styker" and he definitely was a veteran of WWII. In Airplane!, the character is "Ted Striker" and he is a veteran of a war, never directly specified. However, every flashback Striker has of the aerial combat he took part in, with the audio "Stay in formation. Target just ahead. Target should be clear if you go in low enough. You'll have to decide . . .," (before the comedic site gags of failed aviation experiments throughout history) depicts single engine propeller aircraft, with one level of wings, engaged in combat. They weren't biplanes, so the war wasn't World War I. They also weren't jets, so the war wasn't the Korean War. WWII was the only conflict the United States was involved in using propeller aircraft with one level of wings. Those points are just historical fact,*** and everything between "***" is just me geeking out. In any event, the fact is documented in the DVD commentary, so I'm going to restore my edit, cite my source, and post this on the page's discussion page as well. My apologies for not properly citing the addition in the first place. --Bark (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated by the commentary track, they've made a distinction between Zero Hero being WWII, and Airplane! being "a war". That's a significant difference for accuracy here. That point can be made elsewhere in the article (for example, in the development section where the character name is the same and has a similar background). But as confined to the specific plot of the movie, they don't discuss the war, and while you are likely right that the only war it could be is WWII, the movie just does not say this and we can't make that leap of logic without a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3OR sided with you, so I reverted my addition out. --Bark (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the changes you made to the Half-Life 2 article, and I would appreciate it if you could defend or revert them.

The paragraph you moved from "Gameplay" to "Story" doesn't belong there, it decribes how the game narrates its story, and that is gameplay related. It served as a nice transition.

You also moved the distribution section under development, and moved it's subsection describing the leak under development as well, neither action makes sense to me.

I tried to keep the "story" section as brief as possible in order to shorten the length of the article. Much of the extra stuff you added is unverifiable research and isn't notable, just random detail and trivia that doesn't help the article. The summary after my edits was a quick walkthrough, covering each major action and chapter.

And finally you reordered the sections. The only reason I changed the order was to ensure the sequels section was the last in the article. I'm curious of the reasons behind your change. --Pyroguy (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss plot from an out-of-universe standpoint; to that, explaining how the story is told to the player, though in-game dialog and w/o typical cutscenes is part of the plot. It is also necessary to explain enough of the background of how the Combine come to be in the game series to set up the nature of the world as it is otherwise not obvious; this additional information does not lengthen the article by any great means and is completely appropriate for it. And no, all the stuff I added is documented and sourcable. I've done several featured articles so I know what is needed and not needed.

As for the order: VGs article have a pretty set order: Gameplay, Plot, Development (which includes distribution and sequels), and Reception. Even if your order attempted to put the sequels last, that's not standard. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing the List of songs in Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock. Doctorawesomeness (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but some of the genres on the list are not their in-game genre such as Linkin Park's "Bleed it Out", the in-game genre is "nu metal", the list says its "alternative" and Aerosmith's Cryin', the in-game genre is "blues rock", the list says its "hard rock". Doctorawesomeness (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your message, the same could be said about Uncharted before the third game was announced the article has long been there. Even by inferring from WP:NCVG with regards to the line
"If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."

This shows that a series page can have less than three games. If you get what I'm driving at.KiasuKiasiMan 15:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiment. Though having both a comic and film adaptation, shows that Sony plans to further develop the series though that's not exactly official. However, you are right in that the rules may need to be clearer.KiasuKiasiMan 15:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You had weighed in at the first FAC for South Park (season 13), which got hung up largely because of the image. Now there is a second FAC discussion ongoing, where once again the image is dominating the conversation. At the FA delegate's suggestion, I am asking everyone who participated in the first FAC to weigh in once again, if it's not too much trouble, but please comment on the full set of FA criteria rather than just the image fair use rationale, so we can work toward a consensus on the overall FAC. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Dear Masem, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 15:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, I was; fur sur. So, do you think it fairly close to being guideline material? I'm not in any hurry; travelling for holidays, and mostly not here. The impetus for this nudge was a spate of notability tagging of a large number of places, such as Indonesian Regencies (Kabupaten, akin to US counties), and other such things that I view as inherently notable. See Batuan, Bali, for example; see Dr. B's efforts, since: Batuan, Bali. See:

• User talk:DGG#Notability of Indonesian geography, too.

Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion from VPP (where, by making it a guideline, we were notified of that change automagically by bots) suggested that its not that there's any chance of a notability guideline for places to be had, but that unilaterally making a notability guideline without discussion is a problem. I recommend three steps:

• Realize what WP:OUTCOMES say, and determine what really needs to be said about places to not be overly redundant.
• Make sure that it laid out and formatted closer to something WP:NFILM (eg we start from the GNG but have special cases here). As it is now, its a vague handwaving like OUTCOMES and not easy metrics to realize.
• Once you've edited to that point and gotten any local consensus, start an RFC and broadcast it far and wide to gain consensus to move from an essay to a guideline. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love that a bot picked this up. I'll make a brief comment there, but mostly have plans off-wiki for the next few days ;) I think some form of inherent notability needs to be nailed down as a given. I'm often tarred as an Evil Deletionist, have been criticized for always !voting delete. I do believe some things need deleting, but there are huge areas of the project I support keeping and expanding. I expect the disproportionate del:keep ratio is about few people nominating, say, Paris for deletion. I also have plenty of good faith that genuinely appropriate articles at AfD will survive; I'm just letting others handle those.

I'll review what you've pointed me at. I'm not at all attached to the specific text of that essay and know that proper guidance is much more carefully crafted. I'm going to ping DGG, too; he and I disagree on a lot re notability, but we agree here. This is a chance to find some common ground. I'd never heard of this essay until he mentioned it on his talk. As I see it, the issue those id:articles have are a need for expansion and ref improvement.

Happy Holidays, Jack Merridew 10:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I'm not sure what concerns you would have about the geographic features page. The point of moving this information from outcomes is to make in a formal guideline. The only two areas of possible concern are the need for some additional specification about non-official places such as neighborhoods, with some footnoted examples, and similarly about geographic features. I am heartily in accord with Jack's ideas about accepting intrinsic notability for as many types of things as possible. I am so much in accord with this as a principle, that I would accept more restrictive intrinsic notability than I would ideally like, in order to get the principle established as widely as possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

It is not that we could or couldn't have notability guidelines for places. I am concerned (per VPP) that no discussion was made to put into place. Notability is so fickle that it cannot be "adopted" by one or two bold editors. All I have pointed at for Jack was to formally propose the guideline in an RFC to assure that consensus is met. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold; I'm not giving the slightest thought to reverting you. I was rather hoping that it could be nudged to proper form and adjusted as consensus drives it. DGG's keen on this and I'll support the general process you've outlined and lend a hand as time allows. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down as fundamentally opposed to making this a guideline. Nothing is intrinsically or inherently notable enough for a standalone article. If no reliable source cared to make sufficient comment about the place to satisfy the GNG, there's nothing to make an article out of.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The core ones I'm talking about (id:places) mostly have official sites; they're on the id:wp articles. For the really far-flung places, the central government maintains pages with the basic info; population, area, &c. They're in Indonesian, of course. I'm saying that for real places, that it's reasonable to allow a stub to live. I've been to a village named Tejakula^{it's real} in the Kecamatan Tejakula, Buleleng^ref in the Kabupaten of Buleleng in the Indonesian Province of Bali. btw, I've seen other such stories as the ref I linked. Is this really the route we want to go for establishing notability of places? Tejakula (the village), has an id:stub at id:Tejakula, Tejakula, Buleleng; I've not edited that; but see the history of this navbox, especially this edit which switched it to my id:wp-wide navbox system for administrative divisions of Indonesia. *This* is what I did while en:banned. This is part of why I'm back. fyi, this is User:Meursault2004 and I in Denpasar. He was visiting my mother, who was in the hospital on dialysis; this was taken in the hospital parking lot by his mother. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I just referenced the new List Notability guideline in this AFD. It will be interesting to see how it is recieved. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Portal2 coop characters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why a link to an Okami Wiki is not an appropriate external link for the Okami page? I would have thought a link to a site that gives in-depth information on the game would have been appropriate so i would like to hear your reasons as to why it isn't 210.56.91.43 (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the current edit war over the album type is rather sad but it is most certainly intolerable. Please visit Talk:Michael (album)#End the Edit War - Studio vs Compilation and part-take in the attempt to find a final resolution. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The television broadcast program identified Limbo as "Winner, Game of the Year" which is accessible at 5:04 in the url. Since the show is notable enough to have its own article, do you object to the use of video as citation, even though it is verifiable? Would you have no objection if the information appeared on the website in text format instead? On the other hand, I can find few third party references to the show. If the show is not reliable, why do we allow its article to exist? The article was nominated for deletion but users felt that the show was notable. I was under the impression that information from a notable source can be used. Do you think the show can be both notable and unreliable? Thanks. Shawnc (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit reverting my edit, explaining my actions as much as edit summaries allow. If you still disagree with it, can we take it to the talk page before it becomes an edit war? Thanks, --86.143.25.2 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. You've weighed in a bit at the South Park (season 13) FAC with regard to the infobox image. As you can see, the debate has been consumed by the image so far, and I was hoping to just encourage you to continue to review the rest article of the article if you can spare the time. The FA delegate has made clear it will not pass unless the entire FA criteria is reviewed, so I was hoping would be willing to review it in terms of that entire criteria, and state on the page whether you feel it meets it and why, or whether you feel it doesn't and provide some feedback as to what needs improvement. It doesn't have a chance at passing unless it's reviewed according to the entire FA criteria like this. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the WMF is based in California, not Florida. Servers are in Florida, (and Amsterdam, and soon Virginia), but the WMF itself is in San Fransisco. Identifying a state or defining 'main servers' is rather hard to do. Prodego ^talk 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is ever going to be a legal challenge, it will be where the data was sent from - Florida - and not where the organization may be. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly use Florida's laws (or Dutch law, by the same token). California law could also apply. It all depends on exactly what you are challenging. Simply saying 'Florida law' incorrectly simplifies the reality. Prodego ^talk 19:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until this WP:General Disclaimer is changed to reflect other locations, we presume the laws that pertain to the State of Florida. If WMF decides they have to cover their asses and include California or foreign countries, we can reflect that, but for now, we go by Florida's law. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem,

Thank you for your kind words about Whoa Nellie Deli. I see that you are skilled in article assessment and improvement. I haven't participated in assessing articles so don't yet understand the process. If you have a few moments to spare, could you take a look at Harry Yount, which I recently rewrote and expanded? Your comments would be appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. I believe the RfC you started is doomed to fail in so far as causing any change in the status quo. Nevertheless, I think it is very important and am very happy that you started it. Change does not happen over night. Most people will be recalcitrant to change, resisting at every step. Multiple studies have shown that most humans resist change. I would venture to guess that the German language edition would suffer as much resistance to including non-free images as we have and will continue to experience in reducing non-free usage. Nevertheless, without efforts such as yours culture can never change. No challenge to the status quo enforces it, make it ever lasting. So, even though this RfC will not change the status quo now, it helps set the table. If ever we are to reduce non-free usage, it had to be done. Thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC) moving discussion here from my talk page; one place[reply]

• I agree that I don't think it's going to promote change, but it does expose that we have taken something for granted. I still think we can cut back on cover image use, but also stand by what the consensus says, and I think this is the first time since the Foundation Resolution that we've had such discussion. It will likely come out keeping covers, and I have to respect that that is what the consensus, but I do already seem some glimmer of hopes in some of the comments on "oh, maybe not on stubby articles" or "maybe not for works of type X". The only real change is either going to be in time or if the Foundation comes down and says "100,000s of NFC images is not what we meant by exceptions". --MASEM (t) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the Foundation has never stepped into the middle of this debate, and I doubt they ever will. I don't know the legalities, but it might have something to do with non-interference in the postings of third parties to their web site. If they don't interfere, and the third parties do something legally bad, they're ok. Just a suspicion on my part as to a motivation behind why they won't act on these matters. The stubby articles point is an interesting one, but it will never gain consensus because there's no metric for what a stub is, much less an album stub. We need some more firm metric; the one I noted about having a secondary source cited discussion is one that is concrete. But, that won't be accepted either, I'm sure. Ultimately, I do think the battle is lost. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the position expressed by DocKino and SteveBaker that so starkly highlights the failure. They fail to understand the concepts of Gratis versus Libre, whether that failure be willful or not. The battle that has always been fought is fundamentally on this concept. People don't get it, and I think most people don't want to get it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the case that so many editors think free beer vs free speech, this is where the Foundation needs to clear its throat and provide a careful reminder of its mission. I know they likely won't settle any specific issues, but if between WP's mission and the Foundation's resolution that people still don't get it, a word from god might. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd be interesting (and telling) to run an RfC on whether the project is free as in gratis or as in libre, and whether it SHOULD be as in gratis or libre. I think I know what the latter would result in; about 80-90% thinking as in gratis. What would be more depressing is that a majority would probably say as in gratis for the former. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just LOVED this comment!!! Yep, gotta have pretty pictures lest our 'readers' (read: illiterates) get confused about what article they came to! So many times I find myself wondering if some editors are just incapable of understanding what an encyclopedia is, and must have spent their entire education 'reading' picture books. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wonder if it is at least worthwhile to throw a link to this RFC to the Foundation - not asking for their input but to let them know how a cross section of editors on their largest project view the mission. A sandbox with rules but without anything to remind us of those rules will get dirty very very fast. I'm sure the Foundation is taking "we don't care until we're sued" approach but given their response to BLPs, I think they would want to be a bit more proactive here. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfC isn't focused quite enough on that divide, I think, to highlight to the Foundation just how far astray we've gone. The Foundation has never stepped in before that I'm aware of, and I doubt they ever will. But, if there is to be something they would step in on, it would be the free content aspects of the mission I think. Perhaps a more focused RfC along the lines of asking a very limited set of questions ala "As a Wikipedia editor, do you edit with an eye towards making Wikipedia free for (a) anyone to use or (b) anyone to do with as they please?" --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole RfC is one giant circular argument. It has no end, no conclusion, no possibility of consensus. The holes in the logic of those wanting to use non-free content in the depiction of fictional characters are gapingly huge. The holes have been described by yourself, me, and some others without success in conveying the issue. I fear there's only so many times one can describe the color blue. There is no middle ground here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the edit moving the the game list to its separate section. They need a separate section in list form for quick reference by readers as they're very hard to pick out when inside the paragraphs. -Object404 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of games are extremely important and are of note for the Humble Indie Bundles. They need a proper listing in list form. They are as integral to the article as the concept itself. Stop reverting, they need readability. -Object404 (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists -> "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." -> the list of Humble Bundle games does not read easily as a sentence and results in lack of readibility for the article. -Object404 (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia readers want the Humble Indie Bundle games in the article formatted in list form:

• "@humble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Indie_Bundle Sure could use an update (list of games, formatting, etc) and I'm not clever enough" [6]
• Humble Bundle organizer Jeffrey Rosen's reply: "@bwibbwz it's a big no-no to edit your own wikipedia page, but I think the community will update it soon" [7]

Kindly reply at Talk:Humble Indie Bundle -Object404 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Please add your inputs at the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Humble Indie Bundle and attach your signature to the agreement. -Object404 (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Indie#Participants. There's only 5 entries. Isn't this a bit contradictory for you given your stance on lists? -Object404 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS does not apply to WP space. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2010, the project has:

135 Featured Articles 41 Featured Lists 6 Featured Topics

37 A-Class Articles 456 Good Articles 9 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: Writing a Featured list Featured editor: JimmyBlackwing

---

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

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just reminding you that DJ Hero 2 and its songs list has until January 18th its retention expires. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to muddy the waters over there with something else that I'm not sure about, but looking at this edit and this edit, I was struck by the removal of all the comment tags. I don't know about the Wikiproject comment tag in the second edit; maybe those are disfavored? But the ones indicating that an archive link or ref title was "bot generated" concern me...I haven't read any guideline on this, but I would assume that those should remain in an article at least until someone manually checks that the bot filled in the right information. Given the speed of the edits, I have a hard time believing that happened here. Thoughts?

Another issue is that making all of those other changes at once makes it more difficult to locate, in longer articles, where and which image exactly was removed, but that might just be me getting whiny. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree the hidden comment removal is questionable - I don't think there's anything in policy that disallows their use. That could be a bug in his program so I would approach him about it.

I will say that if you feel his actions (such as the number of things his semi-auto script is doing now) is an issue and he's no-responsive to it, to raise it on those BetaCommand pages for more discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I'm bowing out of the thread. BB's hate filled vitriol has become too much. It's derailing reasonable discussion. I'm sure I've contributed to that. But, I've outlined my stance as best I could, and there's no point in me contributing to the thread anymore. So, I'm gone from it. I'll continue my 10c removals as I've done in the past. If there's some specific change to the NFC guideline or NFCC guideline proposed as a result of this thread, I expect I'll see the proposal at WT:NFC. I applaud your efforts to keep the discussion on topic, but it's ultimately futile in the face of the storm of hatred being tossed at Δ. If you start a new thread on the abstract topic of 10c enforcement without involving Δ, please let me know. But, with Δ the discussion is hopelessly clouded. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BB's attitude is definitely out of line here, and I understand why you're dropping out, but that shouldn't be happening. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You might try closing the discussion, putting a collapse box around it, and placing a link to a new discussion at WT:NFC about how 10c enforcement should be conducted. Just remove Δ from the equation. I don't like that Δ has buried his 10c removals into a bunch of other changes, and have raised that issue with him, but his 10c removals themselves are accurate and within policy. I think the issue is 10c enforcement itself, not Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been periodically dropping in to the thread. I haven't read all of it (just too long now) but have read some comments. In particular I saw this proposal by you, in particular #3. I recall that when we had a bot do this work, it did leave messages on article talk pages regarding the removals. It's trivial work for a bot to do. Requiring editors to notify article talk pages when an image is removed doubles the workload. Edit summaries are used precisely for this purpose; we do not need to replicate the work and double the workload with bureaucracy such as this. In my own patterns of edits, when I remove images for failing WP:NFCC 10c, I leave a detailed edit summary regarding the edits with a link to the respective policy. I occasionally check back to see if the removal has been reverted. If it has, and the appropriate rationale has not been added, I'll remove the image again and then leave a message with the person attempting the use (example). A consider this a lot more effective for multiple reasons. First, it does not double my workload, only increases it a small amount when I'm wrongfully reverted. Second, it targets the message to the person making the erroneous edit. There's no guarantee the editors making the erroneous edits will read the talk page of the article. There's a considerably higher chance they'll read their own talk pages, as they are alerted to new messages. Three, it helps to ward off them making similar errors on other articles. There's been a prior suggestion in the thread to develop an essay regarding why the removals are done, and linking that in the edit summary. I'd be fine with that; it would help to improve detailed explanations of why the removals are done and how to go about fixing it, it wouldn't double the workload, and it improves the edit summary to be more explanatory than it already is. For the record, barring a change to policy/guideline requiring notification of 10c removals being posted on article talk pages, I won't do it. It sounds like a good idea from one view, but there's zero evidence to suggest it would help solve the continued problems with 10c edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know I'm not in the "elite" of Wikipedia, but all this stuff about "unsourced" edits has gone too far. Consider this edit, which you reverted as "unsourced." Just how is it any less sourced than the entire Plot & Continuity sections? They were put together by watching the program, and so was my edit. --Joe Sewell (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that the assumption of intent was the preventative here, and that a request to rephrase was out of order. But, as I said, I'm not in the "elite." --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No, that's wrong. Our approach is not use non-free media when a free equivalent is available."

I don't mean to be rude, but the way you wrote this is confusing. Did you think that I was arguing for non-free media over free media from this?

"We only minimize fair use when there are free images available. Using a fair use image where no other free image is available does not interfere with our goal at free content as there would be no free content to replace it with..." --AerobicFox (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks for helping to clarify this edit summary. I completely overlooked the removal of that image among a sea of other changes. --Deryck C. 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that in the Jan '11 issue of Game Informer the article "And the Band Played On" gives worldwide sales of Beatles Rock Band as two million worldwide; it also mentions that while it sold respectably part of the issue was that licensing costs ate into the profits, which GI suggests is the reason Viacom is selling off Harmonix. If you wanted to use the info I can shoot you the relevant info and citation, or just try to integrate it in myself (although the sales section might need to be reworked.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the Skyrim cover one? Just shoot me the page # since I get the mag. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My copy's got a beat-up Lara Croft on the front (got it from Gamestop so I'm not sure if retailer cover is any different.) Page no. is 13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 13:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ōkami. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.92.67 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the OnLive platform from the Braid page. OnLive is a platform, please look it up if you are unfamiliar with it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenonlive (talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OnLive is a hardware platform. There is a console and controller that connects to a television just like a 360 or PS3. http://www.onlive.com/game-system Please stop changing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenonlive (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about your last edit summary, the entry wasn't in the references section, it was in further reading, big difference. I dont have a problem with moving it to external links, it's probably more appropriate there.--RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah to decent ratings in the Friday timeslot!

What do you think of this edit? That third subhead had changed a number of times to eventually end up at "In the parallel universe" - but I think almost all of the members were in the prime universe (maybe some //from// the parallel universe, but the observer is I think extradimensional, so he doesn't really fit either).

Also, the laundry list of "notable one time characters" - shouldn't that (at least) be trimmed to bluelinks only? –xeno^talk 00:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, it is inappropriate to separate characters by "universe" and like the approach of id'ing both. For minor characters without pages (like Astrid), that makes it easier to include any production info on their character.

And I completely agree with removing the one-time characters. Even just blue-linked ones may be minor actors, and I would have to go back to compare how they give top billing to more recognized starts (Peter Weller or Christopher Lloyd for example) compared to your average on-hand caster, but all that can go in the episode lists and on the individual episode pages (which, at least season 2 onward, should all be notable). --MASEM (t) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Have at it. Thank you for your efforts on this. –xeno^talk 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to promote "The Firefly" to GA status in a few days, and just wanted to see if you have any recommendations or improvements for it. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 06:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K, I'll nominate it today. It will likely take a while to get reviewed however (like Brown Betty), so feel free to add any other changes you think it needs. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated Olivia (Fringe) for GA as well, so feel free to make any changes or give it one last looking over. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 01:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken in comparing OnLive to a "Storefront" like Steam. In fact, Steam delivers games for specific platforms that are available such as Microsoft Windows. OnLive is a "Cloud Computing Platform". This may be a new concept regarding traditional game platforms but it is still a hardware/software system where game developers have to do additional work to port it to the system. You also run and save your games on the OnLive system. Also, you will see that as other cloud systems platforms emerge, there will be unique games (especially those that require tremendous resources) that will only be available on cloud computer systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmasyean (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been settled yet, Masem? Reason I ask is this chap. Geoff B (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]