Oops, I just realized that I probably could have just come straight to you. My mistake. I just posted at the village pump about closing your old cover art RfC. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 03:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and closed the RfC. Is that OK with you? - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 05:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I would ask you directly, since you objected to my original draft, and it seems to be difficult to workshop specific problems in the general discussion taking place at WT:MTAA. How is this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masem- have you nominated yourself for a regular triple crown? I noticed that you're not listed on Wikipedia:Triple Crown. Would you like me to nominate you? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Go ahead, I'm busy making sure the OMM mess is defused. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the gamepad crown motivate you to press on with more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, just wanted to let you know I nominated Olivia (Fringe) for FA status. Since you really haven't edited that particular article, would you mind leaving some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olivia (Fringe)/archive1? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 21:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this seems like it was kind of big news for Old Man Murray, probably the biggest thing to happen involving the site in years apparently. I understand there is some concern regarding the nature of a wikipedia article talking about itself? Is there any way to work this event into the main article? --Omnitographer (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Wikipedia for a while, I was surprised to see this sort of comment about your readers. Try as I might to assume good faith, I'm having trouble reading the term "meatpuppet" as anything but highly derogatory, dismissing the possibility that those so named could offer reasonable comments or even be acting under their own volition. I hope this is not the message you intend to send, but it's quite disheartening all the same. (I did not comment in that discussion, and think you supported a good outcome). 98.228.139.19 (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not meant to cover any person that enters a conversation that never has participated before, only that when people pled cases like this to get voices, that can lead to people participating in unintentional meatpuppetry with little additional input beyond "me too"s. I wouldn't be able to say if anyone that was new to that discussion was a true meatpuppet, it's just the general effect. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to read that discussion as if you were a new user. 98.228.139.19 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is - no one was identified as a meatpuppet, but the way the story was getting around (between RPS and Slashdot), meatpuppetry could have happened and that influence needed to be considered - particularly given this seems to be a feud between users of two different sites. Talking about the possibility of it happening is important for the admin that evaluated the discussion; accusing any specific user of being that with evidence is a problem. I understand a new user may see this negatively, but this type of concern for a off-site coverage of a WP process is necessary to point out. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your amazing work keeping Old Man Murray from deletion in a civil and responsible manner with the utmost integrity. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you are perhaps the best person to ask. If a normal person managed to take a photo of a celebrity, has it developed and sells it on Ebay. The person who buys it, can they then upload it to commons?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure no. Selling via eBay is not an implicit transfer of copyright. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to make sure for someone. They can't understand why, because they now have the only copy of the work. I told them better to search Flickr and hope.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 17:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in helping develop such an article? I figure that it would be best to make an article of this kind, considering the recent developments of merchandise and a comic. It could also help "lighten" the Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 articles a bit by trimming their gameplay sections down some and covering the basic gameplay like the director and such in the series article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a Triple Crown.

Thanks for expanding the article - it looks great. However, you took out the bit about activities, flashpoints and strongholds, which is some important information. Can you put it back? I can't right now. Thanks. CR4ZE (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had activities in the gameplay section,, and readded the flashpoints and strongholds to that as well. The GI article doesn't actually they them too much into the plot as the neogaf threads implied but you're right they're clearly important. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which image do you think works best for Momentum Deferred? Do you like this one, or this one better? Or another one entirely? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's head reattaching is better, if only to help emphasize the sfx and the use of "mercury" as blood. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to format the items as two separate footnotes anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential to our discussion: Hypothetically, if the family did not release the photo (I believe they did) but it nonetheless became a viral phenomenon of historical significance, referred to in multiple RS sources, and displayed on multiple blogs and minor news sites, would there be no fair use claim? Ocaasi (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would still argue no, and again compare it to things like the Sony PS3 hack - widely distributed and well known (genie out of the bottle) but still a piece of information that is (at the present time) illegal to possess in the US and other parts of the world. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I counter that there is an ongoing commercial interest with the PS3 hack such that possessing it allowed for further commercial disruption? But in this case there would be no commercial basis. It might still invoke NFC#4, but with a different reason. I don't think Sony argued against the release of the key just for copyright reasons, but because they could demonstrate actual economic harm. I'd have to read up on Sony, though, I'm just guessing. I'm still stuck on the idea that once something becomes abundantly newsworthy or historically significant, fair use permits its republication for non-commercial purposes, especially if they are public interest purposes regardless of what the copyright owners think. I'm not sure whether the law agrees, or whether Wikipedia standards agree, but both are interesting. Ocaasi (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo you commented on has been nominated for deletion. You're invited to vote here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 15 USchick (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have reviewed the article Quick time event to see whether it meets the GA criteria. Unfortunately, my assessment shows that the article does not meet the criteria at this time. I am putting the review on hold for one week to address the concerns raised in my assessment; the article will be reassessed against the criteria by March 23, 2011. You can leave your comments on the review page. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 17:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

via Game Informer. I don't really follow how things flow anymore, but it might be something that's not on your radar yet (got it through Twitter feeds). --Teancum (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen it yet, but GI==RS and for next week so... up it goes! --MASEM (t) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, so what needs to be done to initiate a change of heart, or attitude realignment for sports fanatics? It's plainly absurd to want to list every athlete who ever played a game of professional anything. If the Village Pump discussion achieved nothing, where does this issue have to be raised to get a chance at a serious outcome?

If the prominence of sports on Wikipedia were an accurate reflection of the state of our civilization one would have to guess that all nuclear physicists, medical professionals and politicians are also professional ball players.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the step that needs to be done is to open an RFC at the Pump or central location with wide announcement to bring forth non-sports editors to bring forth the question: "Is the act of playing at the professional/highest level of a sport a sufficient indicator of notability for athletes?" I would specifically tailor the discussion then to say "What sources are assuredly available when a player reaches the professional level, and what is the encyclopedic quality of the information from these sources?" The goal is either to allow ATH to assert that this is a truism, or to remove what most at VPP recognize as a "part of the job" and thus non-criteria for notability. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're one of the recent Saints Row article contributors, I'm asking for your input on the Saints Row and Saints Row 2 character lists. I seriously think they need deletion. CR4ZE (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to nominate Over There (Fringe) as FA eventually. I still have other major edits to make on it, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to have other editors (especially Fringe fans) look the article over before it is ruthlessly dissected by the FA reviewers. BTW, I've really enjoyed your recent edits on Fringe (TV series). Maybe we can get it to GA (or higher) eventually? Thanks! :) Ruby2010 talk 03:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2011, the project has:

139 Featured Articles 43 Featured Lists 5 Featured Topics

36 A-Class Articles 482 Good Articles 10 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: Reference Library Featured editor: GamerPro64

---

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 02:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to go ahead and add the info to NOT since it seems there's consensus around the addition? I would add it, but I think it could use some trimming first, though not much.陣内_Jinnai 15:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tar-7-roadblock.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited for a discussion in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DJMax track listings. Your input would be greatly appreciated.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that a lot of good articles and probably a lot of featured articles (I haven't check them yet) are abusing the use of copyrighted images on Wikipedia (for example, I've seen several articles that use three images to visualize content in the article even though the first image demonstrates everything that the other two images are trying to do). Would you be interested in helping fix this problem? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Masem? Remember me? Mario324? The one who made the talk form on the Portal 2 article?

I hate you.

You deleted my talk part and you are getting me mad.

I saw the Portal 2 ending myself (I got spoiled anyways) so, that is really not good.

THIS IS IT. If you or other people do this another time, you/he will be talked on.

Think harder, stupid! And don't think of deleting this either! - Mario324 (talk) 19:34 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario324 2 (talk • contribs)

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. - Masem (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsees. My Bad. I'll keep it like that. But still, why no cake? - Mario324 (talk) 07:57 1 May 2011

Thanks for uploading File:Eternal-sonata-screenshot.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 1#File:Girl regenerating.png, a deletion discussion for an image you have recently uploaded or commented on. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Do you think you could take this audio file and bring it to this Wikipedia? I'm not sure how to do that, exactly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing a sound sample is just like dealing with an image file. You upload it the same way, provide a similar rationale, etc. So you can dl it from the russian wiki (which has similar NFC policy, so that sample seems to be set right with low resolution), upload it here, and add all the normal rational stuff to it. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

WP:NFLISTS ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keepscases asked me to name another admin that I thought should stand for reconfirmation. Rather than analyze all the admins I had seen work, I mentioned you, because of the 3RR exemption for being right you claimed on AN/I yesterday. I'm not saying that shows you shouldn't be an admin, just that it raises a question in my mind, like the questions that various discussions had raised over the past few weeks about my own fitness to serve. I don't think reconfirmation should be controversial, unlike the people who are opposing mine because they don't believe in reconfirmation RFAs.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the heads up, completely fair to include. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of internet phenomena. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

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. 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 a version 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nex Carnifex (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that smile dog made it to the oklahoma news despite being an internet urban legend makes it a phenomenon. Internet urban legends are not things that are spamed everywhere like usually memes would be, they are stories that are passed on throughout the internet, thus "circulating". This one was circulating so much it justified being in the news, it is most certainly an internet phenomenon. Nex Carnifex (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make it an internet phenomena. There's no affirmation of the breadth of exposure or use that the image has gotten stated by the article. I know several things that could be stated to have "circulated the internet" and sourced to that extent but they cannot be considered internet phenomena because of obscure popularity the like. Compare what your source says to most of the other entries on the list, generally which assert the meme as a meme, viral, millions of hits, etc. etc. which are the barriers we need passed. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, I didn't see that there was a second IP that tried to manually revert the edits of the first IP. I reverted the article again to this version, as the good faith IP reversion didn't catch the change from "Ron" → "Ronald" or the change in Amanda/Kris' relationship from "Engaged" to "Dating". Thanks for catching my mistake. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to check it out soon. Just two inquiries though: 1. I'm currently talking to McLain about possibly using a photo of her as free use on Wikimedia Commons through email; how do I prove that the discussion is a legitimate one? and 2. if you get the time (I"m assuming you'll be preoccupied with Portal 2) after I am done doing my copyedits of Wheatley and GLaDOS, could you do a second one? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - as an aside, this site seems reliable, and has a lot of interesting analysis on Portal-related topics. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've found that I'm probably going to have to rewrite the article, so copyediting may have to wait. I believe that I've used everything from Portal 2 in GLaDOS. You can go ahead and start trimming; I'll just use the fullest version in the history for when I look for information on Wheatley, Chell, and Cave Johnson. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Portal2-chell.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 16:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is, she said that she only wanted it to be usable on Wikipedia, which as it turns out is not an applicable for free use. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - thought you might be interested. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got that lecture as an EL, and pieces of it already in place, but I likely need to sit down to see if there's anything critical missing. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a Portal 2 development history book on Kindle. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that's a static version of the iPad app that I can't use. *yoink*. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh and now its the more interactive version on Steam. ...[4] at only $2. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna grab that? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely will, but I don't think text wise there's much of a difference. We'll see. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was missed (I apologise in that the indenting is surely a mess) I responded, and asked a question : ) - jc37 00:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there a list anywhere of all the bots which directly interact with AfD? - jc37 01:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- generally I know WP:ALLCAPS is the rule. However, I feel like this would be an exception because the name is being used in a table which is meant to reproduce the information as it can be found in-game and on the Rock Band website, both of which use "KISS". In prose, using "Kiss" would be appropriate per the MOS and for the sake of readability, but I think that in a table like this it is misleading to use the lowercase version because it would misrepresent how the songs are listed in the games. Besides, there are other artists with unusual capitalization which have been listed as such in the table for a long time (like HIM, KSM, and KMFDM). I don't think that the fact that KISS is an existing English word should change how it is represented in the table. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the other three bands, the names are acronyms, so it would follow to use all caps. For Kiss, the band upper case is all stylized. I realize that as it is not in prose it is not as much a problem, but someone way back at the first Kiss pack complained that allcaps was wrong way back at the first pack, so we've kept it this way since. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... okay. I'm still not a fan of styling it lowercase because of the inconsistencies it causes, but I guess it's no big deal. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of an article about the personality spheres of the Portal series? It would basically be a list which would consist of the four spheres from Portal, the Space Sphere, the Adventure Sphere, the Fact Sphere, the Bill Sphere, and the Pinky Sphere. I've found some reception, including an analysis of their metaphorical merit and that the Adventure Sphere was Wolpaw's favourite. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the Bill and Pinkie sphere are fan-made things (99% sure on that); the only 3 cores besides Wheatley are the Space, Adventure, and Fact sphere. I wouldn't recommend a separate article (that's just dying for newbie editors to expand on), but I would consider either adding them to Wheatley or splitting off the Characters of Half-Life article to Characters of Portal to include the spheres, likely the turrets, likely the WCC, and a few others. All those that can't be split off could easily have development and reception sections but just too short for practical articles. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just kidding about the latter two. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what you thought of what could be taken out of GLaDOS, Chell, Wheatley, and Cave's articles to make them a bit less... intimidating. For example, I'm thinking that the relationships sections in the articles could be removed and the content moved to this article, so we don't have discussion about Wheatley and GLaDOS' relationship, for example, in two separate spots. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that with Chell, GLaDOS, Wheatley, and Cave, a single paragraph to establish them in the fiction is all that is needed alongside the ((main)) for each. For each other character, one para should be about their appearance in the games and then one or more paras for any development and reception that you can provide for them. You don't need the arching concept and reception sections in this fashion since, unlike say a typical RPG where all the characters are designed at one time and talked about in a whole, Portal has had an evolving expansion. Key is to get those secondary sources in there where they can be done. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice,"[5] I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".[6]

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have started a copyedit on the article but am also raising a question on the GA review and subsequent pass.

Normally on an article of such size and considerable content I would expect at least one or two points to be raised by the reviewer. Here the review was seemingly completed without any issues at all. I am not saying that it is impossible for the article to be clear of any mistakes or problems but, with the issues I have already noted on the talk page, it seems that perhaps the GA reviewer was a little hasty to pass it.

I hope this does not cause offence, certainly nothing about it reflects on your solid work, rather the GA reviewer.

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have finished the copyedit. It was a really good read, there were only a couple of other points that I raised and most of the work I did was on punctuation and italics inside quotes which were not italicised in the originals.

I know I have queried the GA review but I would get that in as an FAC as although I do not have any GAN or FAN experience at assessing, I would say that failing anything obvious I have missed it is as good as other FAs I have seen. I do not think there would be any problem with a GA now as most of the small amount of problems are fixed.

Good work! Best of luck on the FA :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you may be busy, I was hoping that you could give Glass Joe a copyedit and/or provide a comment on its FAC. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem,

Given your contribution to the debate I've undone the deletion etc.. I tried to leave a closing message but am chosing to blame my flaky satellite connection rather than having too many tabs open and losing track of things. My reading of the debate, before you intervened, is that Sven adequately refuted New Age Retro Hippie's argument leaving no support for the image remaining. I think it most appropriate now that I leave deciding closure of the debate to another. All the best - Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just a note to let you know that the deletion discussion of File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg resulted in 'no consensus defaulting to keep' and that the closure is now being debated at WP:DRV. All the bestest, ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 10:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craigslist (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem.

I noticed your work on the Portal 2 article, and wondered if you wouldn't mind glancing at From Dust? I requested a peer review, although it isn't progressing. While the game is unreleased, I'm sure the article can be improved further. If you're busy, I'd appreciate suggestions on others to approach for feedback. Thanks. Meph^talk 17:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. That makes me feel less stupid for not just sending the thing off to G4 deletion land. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think declining the speedy was right for the reasons you gave, but I believe it still doesn't need to exist yet and hence the AFD. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 13:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for your contribution to the MLP:FiM page regarding the cult section. It has since been merged into my user draft and second attempt at a article independent of the main one. You most likely might have a lot of duties to perform since your an administrator, but if you have the time, maybe you could help me improve my draft at User:Rainbow Dash/Cult following of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Thanks, Rainbow Dash 19:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't able to look at your response until later. I am reviewing the problems with my first attempt using the article history and it's AfD. I believe that the sourcing issue has been addressed unknowingly by yourself, but I also believe that the draft needs to be more expanded before it has a fighting chance. Thanks for your quick response. Rainbow Dash 12:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Unfortunately, Portal 2 article has failed on FAC. Are you going to imrpove it to FA quality? TGilmour (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In time, but I need to find better copyeditors. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need a copyedit? As I see it has an issue with its size, hence you need to truncate it. TGilmour (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The VG project has already reviewed the issue about its size and spinning off material, and determined that really can't be done here. A copyedit for general language is what's needed more than anything else. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article needs a major copyedit as I see now. Have you requested it in the Guild of Copy editors? TGilmour (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masem,

You clearly did not read the description of my uploaded photo you've nominated for deletion. No free alternative exists to illustrate the necklace Lady Gaga is wearing.

FunkyDuffy (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the necklace has no alternative, a non-free image of a living person is nearly always forbidden. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not a big thing, but just a note: removal of article tags should not be marked as 'minor'. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah, didn't mean to do that. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that my comments aren't germain to that particular discussion, so I'll redact them...though that will make a portion of your comments obsolete. Also, fair use rationale has been added for the UCLA logo in the Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. I looking for support methods and I found Wikipedia:Supporting Articles. I saw that its being proposed for nearly a year. How's that working out? GamerPro64 01:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is now Portal 2 ready for FAC? TGilmour (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is still CE going on; they wanted to tackle the reception section to trim that down. --MASEM (t) 10:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interest in trying to get rhythm game to FA. At least User:JimmyBlackwing is willing to copy edit it. See here and here. I was wondering if you think the whole research and content side of things is up to standard, as I think it's probably the best of the genre articles in that respect... bridies (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that it is still a changing area, it doesn't feel like there's closure yet for the dance-motion sense era and the instrument perip area. That might get it dinged at FA for lacking comprehension or instability. --MASEM (t) 10:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite serious about my warning on Beta's talk page: if he continues to edit without looking at the file pages, he is in violation of his editing restriction to carefully review every edit.

Here is another example of an edit he made that violates his restriction. He removed an image from Elmwood Park High School (Illinois) because the FUR pointed to Elmwood Park High School. But that latter page had actually been moved to the new name. Any careful editor looking at the file page would have noticed the similarity between the two named and checked the move log; it appears that Beta did not review the file page, or did not do so with any care at all. That's a violation of his edit restriction, as he is expected to carefully review every edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree because this is neither spelled out in his editing reviews, nor a level of editing review that is expected of others (and I'll point to Hammersoft as one who likely has done a number of similar edits) nor considers that those who moved the page in the first place should have also performed this check to make sure nothing broke. I know he is under more scrutiny per the restrictions, but there's nothing specifically in his restrictions that say he must be taking specific steps that are not applied to other non-restricted editors.

Of course, if you feel this is wrong, then the approach is to see a change/clarification at AN or ANI or appropriate venue. If consensus agrees, hey, fine, then I have to back the consensus. But I am pretty sure that each of the last 2 or 3 major ANI threads on Delta's behavior have entered into the debate of whether NFC patrollers in general should be fixing easy-to-correct rationales, and the answer each time from consensus has been "no" (if there has been consensus), as follows from NFC policy. And again, my opinion is that yes, we should try to fix these as common courtesy but policy does not mandate it. --MASEM (t) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inaccurate to lump Beta in with the large number of productive NFCC patrollers. The NFCC issue is unrelated to the actual problem, which is that Beta is not carefully reviewing the edits that he makes. He happens to be editing in NFCC right now, but that's beside the point. He could do the same thing in any number of areas (and has, if I remember correctly, he has done so in the past). NFCC patrollers in general don't have to edit with such caution, but they are not under the edit restriction that Beta is; we don't usually require careful editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem. What is "carefully reviewing"? It's not defined to any degree, and its a potentially wide range of subjective metrics. Without any more accurate definition, I would take that to be the same general level of "careful review" that any editor doing a similar task is expected to follow - which, I hope you can see, is simply to make sure that the article page that the removed file was used on isn't broken wiki-text and still appears correctly. With any normal editor, that means if they make a handful of mistakes, its not a problem, might drop a warning message, etc. In Delta's case, that means that any significant run of mistakes that aren't corrected are likely going to result in a block. This, to my recollection of the community restriction enforcement/arbcom case, is why Delta has these: because he had a bot that he let run rampant that broke numerous pages (among other things) without remorse. That's why I say there's two ways to fix this: either make the editing restrictions more specific of what the standard for "careful review" is for Delta to be held to (and it may be you have to say "if Delta does any work in #10c corrections, he must attempt to fix rationales broken by page moves"), or change the policy so that everyone doing the same type of work is held to the same standard that "careful review" is expected to entail. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the recent back-and-forth at ANI

Hello.
I'm here, away from all the noise and haste of ANI, because I'm somewhat uncomfortable with our recent interactions. I feel as though you're talking through me as opposed to to me, and your responses seem to me to be out of step with what I'm saying. (I'm trying very hard to be nonconfrontational here.) I, like most people, am probably blind to my own faults in the ANI discussion. I don't want to re-hash the whole issue on your talk page, either, for which I'm sure you're thankful. But words like "accuse," "berate," "witch hunt," "pot shots," ... these aren't ones that lead to good discussion. That's all, and please feel free to point out the beam in mine own eye. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the copy edit on Portal 2 has been finished so will you nominate it for FAC? TGilmour (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you input. I do not belive the items that I have created representations of are copyrightable. The original items are small pieces of metal with enamel on them. They are produced by various manufacturers and given meaning by the agencies issuing them. The ones my department issues do not normally include even a makers mark. The images do not damage the value of the original item. They are simply blocks of color. Would you please review a few of the images and provide me with your opinion? I am not attempting to be confrontational, but I do not feel I have done anything wrong.

Thank you for your assistance.SGT141 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a followup on Delta's page, but to reiterate: I am pretty confident that all but the 50th anniv. one are uncopyrightable due to the Threshold of Originality - being of just simple shapes, colors, and text, they lack the "sweat of the brow" and thus are uncopyrightable. The 50th anniv. one might be, but I would say to play it safe and consider it - including a potential redraw by yourself - as non-free.

I see what happened on the original article, in that they were all uploaded as non-free content, and from Delta's view, it looked like you were changing those over, which could be seen as trying to subvert a non-free work. Clearly, though, most of these are truly free, belong on Commons and can be used in the article without worrying about overuse. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I will revert the 50th anniversary image to non-free, to be on the safe side. This certainly indicates that a free image cannot exist, the non-free image should be acceptable. Does that sound about right?

Yes, that's correct. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. With respect to the discussion and your idea for how to manage non-free media in lists, I'm curious how you would respond to book covers existing on List of Jiggy McCue books. To me, this is a case that would fall into grey area in your proposed metric. Is it a list? Some would argue no, because it's considerably more than just a slavish listing of each item within a set (ref List of Chinese hymn books). Is it a compilation of a number of smaller articles that could stand on their own? Some would say yes, others no. It's very poorly referenced, with all but two of the references being to primary sources. Plus, outside of two of the entries, it's all plot summary + list of characters. The other two, there's short sections "Reception" and "Background info", the latter of which is entirely unreferenced. So, I'm curious; how would you respond to this version of the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries are not sufficient by themselves for an article, per WP:NOT#PLOT. Thus the individual books, were they articles, would fail as a standalone article per both that and notability. Even a small single reception or the like is not sufficient for the "small" articles to hold water. This doesn't make the series non-notable and the list article is fine, but would fail the brightline test for cover art in a list article that I'm suggesting. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear; I wasn't taking a sideways attempt at involving you in any discussions about this article or any edits done to this article. It just happened to be the most recent case I came across that I felt didn't fit well within the construct you suggested. I'm still trying to wrap my head around your proposal. I don't think it's workable, but I'm trying. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure sure, I'm not worried. The problem really steps from the automatic allowance for cover art, by consensus. As long as consensus is going to be wanting this, there's a broken case for the rare instances of such grouped articles that would support cover art per instance. The Jiggy McCue books aren't that case. There's likely a way to define it better to make the line very bright instead of grey. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2011, the project has:

140 Featured Articles 44 Featured Lists 5 Featured Topics

36 A-Class Articles 498 Good Articles 11 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: Developing Good and Featured Topics Featured editor: New Age Retro Hippie

---

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 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:My little pony friendship is magic group shot r.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Δ's talk page.
Message added 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You put this note [7] in an "arbitrator discussion" section. I had started a section lower down for non-arbitrator comments on that topic (so I could comment). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone else moved your remarks down to that section; they have not been lost as of the moment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#.22Rests_in_large_part_on_their_earlier_visual_appearance.22.
Message added 00:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The image currently in use in Blackhawk (band) depicts two people who are still in the band, and a third member who is now dead. Would that fall under WP:NFCC since it's very unlikely that there would be a non-free image showing those same three people together? I say yes, since Shenandoah (band) passed GA with a similar non-free image. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use rollback for mass reverts of non-vandalism edits, as per WP:RBK. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 11:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just a short notice, I declined the G4 at Template:River Song stories because I think the new template is different from the previous one in design, scope and goal and thus not covered by the TFD consensus where people mostly argued based on OR and in-universe concerns, both of which this template does not suffer from. While it might seem trivial, I think the difference exists and I am willing assume that the editor creating the new template had no intention of re-creating the old one but acted in line of ((Dalek stories)), ((Cybermen stories)) and ((UNIT stories)).

On a side note, please accept this

for using rollback to revert someone's good faith additions to articles as you did when removing this template again. If admins are seen misusing rollback casually like that, they lose all moral authority to chastise rollbackers if they do the same. Regards SoWhy 11:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just noticed that TT asked you to stop using rollback for those reverts while I was typing this post, so sorry for the double scolding. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the AFD effectively covering that even the case of removing the chronological aspect and just having RS stories to have been rejected (since you suggested it but no one else backed that up, and the renaming would have been a simple non admin fix to remove that issue but wasn't performed, even if the issue was just OR of the timeline). However, I understand the reason to decline the CSD. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masem. You have new messages at Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/GA2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 05:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fringe Leaf of Excellence
		For your ongoing contributions building and improving Wikipedia's coverage of one of the best-damn shows running, I hereby award you the Fringe Leaf of Excellence. (With special thanks for this edit, I was just wondering (literally, less than an hour ago) whether JJ would still be around for S4...) Keep up the good work! –xenotalk 19:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fill in that source to confirm it... :) --MASEM (t) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when are you going to take Portal 2 to FAC? 50.19.23.142 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark implies copyright? Where did that come from?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm thinking about/planning an RfC in order to consider all of this (about 120 files/logos would be in question, all together). I'm just trying to work up the motivation and emotional fortitude (to deal with the various accusations which are sure to follow) to go through with it, as well as considering precisely what to say and present. You know... copyright really sucks. That's always been my opinion anyway, as far back as I can remember, but now that I see in this the effect of it's crappy implementation I'm even more troubled by it than I was before. Ah, anyway, I'm starting to rant a bit... I look forward to your participation in the discussion, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User:Ohms law/Logo RFC
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg – the first FfD of which you participated in – has been renominated for deletion today. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 20 if you wish to participate. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 08:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we need your 'list of broken links' creation skills again. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#We're gonna need a bigger boat - X201 (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the coin articles after I read the thread on WT:NFC "Bibliography different from discography?". How is Commemorative coins of Poland: 2008 really any different than Terence Reese bibliography? Isn't the former really a "coinography"? The rule of thumb we typically apply to -ographies is the one you expressed in your 23:48, 20 July 2011 post in the bibliography thread. Why wouldn't that rule of thumb apply to "coinographies"? Your thoughts? By the way, we have a new #1; Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (France): 2007. 118 non-free images. This is, of course, minimal usage. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if coinography is the right word but the result is the same: it is a list of individually non-notable elements and ergo visual representation of each elements is neither required nor necessary (based on the logic that we do allow visual rep when the work in question is notable enough for an article). One or two representatives images are ok, but not for each one. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That stance also tracks with "List of characters in..." type articles. We don't include a representation of each character. Perhaps a formal proposal to that effect should be done. As of the latest report, coin/note articles constitute 22 of the top 50 articles with the most non-free content, and are responsible for 57% of the usage in that top 50%. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Saw your latest comments to WT:NFC. The figure's 409820 as of today. See [8]. Also, according to this report, 360448 articles use NFCC. I.e., about 10% of the entire encyclopedia has articles hosting non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we ever broken it down by license type? That would be rather interesting... --MASEM (t) 20:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, we have in the form of counting how many times non-free licenses are used. Not sure I can remember where though. But, I do remember that ((non-free logo)) was THE most used license tag, something like 200k+ uses. Δ can better answer that question. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Scratch that. ((non-free logo)) has 108328 transclusions. [9]. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And ((Non-free album cover)) has 119618. Between those two, that's just over 50% of all non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for your input at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Rock Band 3/archive1, which has now passed. The list is now much better than it was at the start of the FLC, and your input helped make it as good as it is now! –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Portal 2 meets the criteria, why don't you just take it to FAC? Claptonish (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit there. Diego (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you have a source for that, because if you don't then it's just another thing getting in the way of a third GA review. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong? --RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how I hit rollback to do that. I've restored it because obviously that shouldn't have happened. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Probably a clicking accident. I've done it before myself. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do a check of the plot summary to see how out-of-universe it's written, and maybe tweak it some if it's too in-universe? I'm terrible at telling the difference. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 2#File:Once Upon A Monster screenshot.jpg by User:Alecmconroy. As this was a file you uploaded, I suspect this may be retaliation of some sort for this. Just thought you might want to know. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not retaliation-- you know where I stand. I don't want it deleted, but it's decidedly non-fair use, low quality, and utterly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a Video Game Guide. Personally, I hope you come up with a good argument for why it should stay. My arguments for far more encyclopedic content have fallen on deaf ears, so we'll be interested to see how you justify such a commercial and trivial image. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you like. It's too convenient that the first image you have ever nominated for deletion happened to be uploaded by Masem. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cooincidental, it's just not retaliatory either. You and Masem obviously have a view I don't, and I don't see how your views are compatible with your actions. In Masem's case, uploading lots of video game stills from commercial FOR-PROFIT projects without getting any permission at all from the owners?? . If we want to be 'more restrictive' than fair use, then surely the first things to go should be the for-profit commercial images, not historical images or 'low res' images.

But it's NOT retaliation, for reals. I don't want to see the image get deleted, I want to understand why it shouldn't be deleted. I also want OTHERS to understand that. I don't understand how you can delete non-profit news stills but simultaneously upload tons and tons of for-profit video game stills. I look forward to the explanation, which I suspect will be "we need to be a little more thoughtful about deleting things we find valueless to us". --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you don't want it deleted, it's an obvious WP:POINT violation. Stop it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, I asked for a conversation about whether it should or should not be deleted based on the deletion criteria stated. Discussion isn't disruption-- it's the exact same situation with the exact same wording. Show me what's different so we learn. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, removing an image and then immediately nominating it for deletion as an orphan is totally being POINTy and will be called out.

Second, the difference between news sources and commercial works is that news sources are making a living off those still images - they sell them or negotiate rights for their reuse. While the Foundation does not discuss commercial works, it is part of US law that is can be a copyright violation if you disrespect the commercial opportunities for the work you use. Since these stills are made to be sold, our use would tread on dangerous legal ground, hence why removed. For stills from copyrighted video works where one frame out of thousands is used, we are not displacing the commercial purpose nor are we using the full work, both making them better fits within fair use law. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving now, but before I do, I did want to clarify one thing. I really and truly didn't nominate your image to 'pick on you' or be hostile towards you. I looked at your user page, saw you uploaded non free video game images, thought that was weirder than images of the House of Commons, and launched a RFC to discuss the discrepancy.

We're not ready for that discussion yet. Maybe when they come for the non-free video game images, you'll be ready to see things my way. :) . But the point being is that a lot of harsh words were said at me today, but not especially by you, and I really want you to know I wasn't trying to 'single you out'.

I knew it was your image, I knew you were online, I wanted a discussion. I did not want to 'attack' you or 'destroy your work', I wanted to set up a compare and contrast for a good discussion.

My last word on the subject, but I did want you to know that. I stand by most of what I did today, but I didn't anticipate someone thinking I picked that image as a way to 'attack' you, and if I had it to do over again, I would have found a fair use image not connected to you or another conversation participant.

Good luck to you and the project--Alecmconroy (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're good at this thing. Got anything to say here? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I addressed your NFCC concerns at Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). Please comment further at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have officially decided to give up on understanding how NFCC applies to this article. I will surely never learn how to apply NFCC. However, please consider commenting on the article. I still need an NFCC endorsement by someone.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm just learning how communicate on wikipedia and until I read through the page history I didn't know moderators were undoing changes I had made to the page.

My apologies for generating a long comment but I hope I can explain with the evidence in it why the page on god of war 3 should be changed under characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_war_3

Now, perhaps my changes could be better but I would like to point out that what is currently written does not heed one of the major themes of the game and also appears incorrect with the specific information stated.

One of the themes of the game is Kratos's own brutality. Yes the gods he deals with are frequently dishonest and ruthless but his own brutality is a theme of the game series.

Here are some youtube videos of parts of the game that show this.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9HU1rmxXH8

"And when the oracle looked into his soul she saw a beast as well as a man."

He was described as a beast due to his brutality. Around 3:20.

And this was during the time period he is played in the game-including when he was in the service of Athena and trying to save a city dedicated to her.

"His tactics were brutal, but effective. Drunk with power, he was feared by all."

Around 3:40.

"His desire for conquest knew no bounds."

Around 4:00.

"By the gods. Why would Athena send one such as you."

Around 4:17. A reference to his current-not just former-brutality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To8-uyioJhs&feature=related

"Memories of what he'd done in the name of Ares."

"Memories of how he'd become a servant to the god of war. A beast, his humanity robbed and replaced.... only with the will to murder."

Around 3:10.

Kratos himself on a village he brought his troops to: "They built this temple to offer prayers to Athena. This entire village stands as an affront to lord Ares."

His troops are then seen killing unarmed men and women running through the streets in terror.

Around 3:35.

"Emboldened by the god of war, Kratos's army was feared throughout the world for their brutality."

Seen from about 4:30-5:00, Kratos himself killing unarmed people in the temple.

"The glory he reveled in turned to horror."

Around 5:00.

This confirms that he reveled in killing unarmed people and expected "glory" from it.

Now it was not that he killed unarmed people-describable as civilians-that horrified him.

It was that only that his own wife and child were among the unarmed people he deliberately killed that horrified him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8iMphY-8oo

There is a wheel that Kratos must turn in order to raise various gates to go under them. Turning the wheel and then jamming it with something is a logical way for Kratos to go forward at this point.

But when he has inanimate objects he has already demonstrated he can handle available he chooses to use a young woman who is both alive and helpless compared to him. This causes her pain and crushes her to death.

Around 8:40 in this video he uses one of the oversized maces to finish off a guard who carried it (a talos).

At this point he has an object in the room that he can use to jam the wheel, but instead he uses the Poseidon Princess.

Furthermore if you watch the whole video you will see there are points at which he grabs the Poseidon Princess and shoves her repeatedly along a path that takes her to the room with the wheel.

This is treatment generally given to a prisoner rather than someone a person is trying to free. And that he takes her to a specific room where he arranges her death may indicate that was his intent all along.

He never freed her hands from their bonds either and used them to trap her against the wheel. If he had intended to free the Poseidon Princess it would make sense not just to pull out the chain holding her to the floor of one room but to break the bonds holding her hands. That he only pulls out the chains may mean he is simply making her a more mobile prisoner rather than freeing her.

So despite the fact that she had not tried to harm him he made the Poseidon Princess his prisoner and caused her demise.

This would not be the first time in the game series Kratos escorted someone to a location in order to cause that person's death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcp89-eC-Zc

Kratos deliberately escorted a caged man to his doom earlier in the series.

This video shows Kratos fighting through enemies and pushing someone begging for mercy along in an "escort" mission similar to what happened with the Poseidon Princess.

It was clear Kratos intended for a caged man to die. Kratos put the caged man in a place where he would be killed if Kratos pulled a handle and then Kratos went and pulled the handle.

It is quite possible, given the fact he continually pushed her on a path towards the room with the wheel that crushes her, that this is what Kratos intended to do the same with the Poseidon Princess and that he did not intend to free her.

Thus it is factually inaccurate to say he "freed" the Poseidon Princess.

Also the phrasing that he "accidentally" killed his wife and child could easily confuse readers as to what happened in the story's plot. An accident is when one does not intend for someone to die. Kratos intended to kill the people he did, it was just latter that he realized the identities of 2 of them.

Now Ares may gave tricked Kratos into killing them but without Kratos' own brutality and willingness to kill others, sometimes including those who are unarmed and/or may not have any intention of attacking him that directly brings (or at least allows for) their deaths.

So the descriptions, under characters, do not accurately reflect what happened to Kratos's wife, his daughter, or the Poseidon Princess.

And the descriptions do so in a fashion that doesn't heed a theme of the game. One of the things that makes the game storyline dark is that both the protagonist and the gods he fights are quite willing to be ruthless and brutal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.4.2 (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the article, I understand what you mean, and I totally agree on you. Though I did not find any source about its generation, I've put the EVO 2 details back to the article, but I wrote things like "It is currently unknown if the EVO 2 is going to be in the eighth generation, as this is currently unconfirmed by journalists". Message me on my talk page if there are any concerns.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And oh... I've also noted that on the EVO 2 article that the generation is unknown.--Gaming&Computing (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem,

I have commented on your action "Reverted good faith edits by Cmglee (talk): Not necessary, also possible copyvio. (TW)" on Talk:Inception#Dream_level_summary_table. If it's not too much trouble, could you please clarify your points on "Not necessary" and "possible copyvio"?

Thanks, cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look for my messages on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaming&Computing (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaming&Computing (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]