High Score (TV Series)
Re: this reversion, please advise on how to source that information. Brazilian Netflix (and also on some other South American countries) chose to change the name of the series without explanation or media statement, but they are indeed presenting the show as GDLK, not High Score. See attached screenshot.
Little Shop of Horrors
Re: this reversion, please advise your basis for the claim that the source is not reliable. Mainly, I want to confirm that you are not conflating the notable publication Metro Weekly (an LGBTQ publication in the Washington, DC region published online and in print for almost 30 years) and metro.co.uk, which is completely unrelated. The source is a first-person interview conducted by Metro Weekly with one of the principal actors of the LSOH film, and the source appears to me to be credible. Also note that I was reverting a removal of content with no explanation. Perhaps {{better source}} would be appropriate if you can identify an issue with Metro Weekly. General Ization Talk 23:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @General Ization: Thanks, I was not aware of that and undid my revision. --Masem (t) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Half Life (series)
please advise why are removing this section "Half-life: The Freeman Chronicles" of the page with the reasoning that the sources are not good enough when other listed titles in the section have similar or NO SOURCES but have not been removed. It seem like there is some sort of bias here?
Beyond Black Mesa has NO SOURCES. I have put many into my listing including many from very reputable media outlets as well as links to the actual films showing that they exist. What other sources would you suggest that would make it ok in your book? Ijduncan (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ijduncan that i was asked by angusWOOF to combine this article into Half-life (series) rather than set up its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijduncan (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- First off, based on the name of the director and your user name, there is likely a conflict of interest in that you are promoting your own film here. See WP:COI. We can't use primary sources and it is far overly detailed for what it is. --Masem (t) 01:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- so its too short for its own page according to angusWOOF (even though other series have similar pages) and too long for this page according to you. So what am i supposed to do? Why not edit it to what you feel the length should be rather than keep deleting the whole entry? The series exists just like all the others in the list.
- Explain what conflict there is due to me being involved in the project? Its just me adding a note that this series that was made years ago exists and the actors that were involved. Ijduncan (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Request for FA Review
I noticed you are listed as an FA mentor. Would you be so kind as to assist in reviewing the article Texas A&M University at the peer review page? Buffs (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Gerda Weissmann Klein
On 10 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gerda Weissmann Klein, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
On Hades (game) revert
Hi Masem, I'm contacting you with respect to this revert. I understand your point, and you are right it was already covered briefly in the Development section. Also, the references I added could have been improved. I still believe there should be something on Reception concerning minority representations in Hades though, since it has stirred debate and recognition, with two awards for appropriate representation (one by the International Game Developers Association). I would like to do another attempt, with better sources and including more minority representation issues (like the black Athena or Ares). Can you please let me know if I'm missing something? And, wouldn't it be better to mention these in Reception rather than Development? As an alternative, I can also add the awards to the award list and expand the Development mentions, without doing a subsection in Reception, although I thought it deserved its own space, since it's something notable. Thanks. Samer.hc (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Ready Player One speculation
Look, the speculation about "a sequel in the works" is by the author himself, from an old source nearly 2 years ago from a less than speculation source to begin with. To mention it in the body is one thing, so present it as undeniable fact in the lead is simply misleading and smacks of both misinformation and fan-based wishful thinking. There isn't any direct, reliable source to corroborate the claim. Further adding doubt is the fact that major movie databases do NOT even list the alleged sequel in pre-production. You seemingly have been around long enough to know this. 2601:282:8100:9440:E023:B27F:BBB3:F492 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, having delved deep into this, even Kline himself admits to speculation, alleging at best TWO YEARS AGO that a sequel is only possibly in "early development", which given the time since then (and the lack of any new sources since then) casts doubt that this has been properly green lit. Please stop engaging in what is called WP:GAMING, and WP:PAGE OWNERSHIP. The fact that we are even leaving that nonsense in the body at all is more than a compromise. Please learn to compromise as well. Peace2601:282:8100:9440:E023:B27F:BBB3:F492 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whoa, those are some heavy accusations right there. Please stay WP:CALM, be WP:CIVIL, and avoid personal attacks. I've posted on the article talk page to further discuss this matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | ||
For your work on the Overwatch articles.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
Video game article question
Hi Masem. Since you seem to often work on video game articles, maybe you could look at Earth Seeker and User:!Wete Pentz Bass!/Earth Seeker because it appears that the latter is going to be an attempt by it's creator to be a major re-write of the article. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, but this is a new user who might simply just try and replace the old with the new by copying and pasting everything at once. That might work, but there also seem to be ways it could possibly go wrong. Maybe you could let this user know about WP:VG and suggest they make smaller and more easily assessable changes directly in the article instead suddenly showing up and trying to do everything at once. It looks they're a student editor doing this as part of a WikiEd assisted university class project. I could ask their WikiEd advisor to look at this, but thought you might be able to provide them with guidance more specific for video game articles. The draft appears to be mainly a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article about the game. FWIW, I only came across this because the user kept trying to use the non-free game cover art in their user sandbox draft. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- For reference, I’ve also asked about this a WT:VG#Earth Seeker. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
HL3 reasoning
Hi, I noticed you reverted the change of HL3 redirect to Episode 3. Let me explain my reasoning. First of all Episode 3 is also interchangeably referred to as Half-Life 3. This article states that "Long-time Valve Software writer Marc Laidlaw tweeted out a link on Thursday night to a story that sounds an awful lot like what could've been "Half-Life 2: Episode 3" (aka "Half-Life 3")." I was also thinking of potentially redirecting the "Unreleased games" article, since the major aspects of it, Episode 3 and Ravenholm both have articles now that can stand on their own (though the Episode 3 article can use a bit more expansion). Episode Three is most closely related to HL3 since the two would likely have the same plot. If that still doesn't change your mind, maybe HL3 can be redirected to a legacy section of HL2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- First, I have a problem with all those being split off to separate articles as it is Valve's unrelease projects as a whole that have overall more notability than any individual one, so they should all be discussed on one page. But as to the point of Half-Life 3, Valve had plans for a full Half-Life 3 way back, then they opted to do 3 episodes to bridge the gap between HL2 and HL3, but Valve being Valve, their vision waivered so it never came. Ep3 should not be mixed up with HL3. --Masem (t) 12:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, well, be that as it may, I believe Episode Three is independently notable as its own cancelled game which fans are attempting to complete, but I will remove the HL3 and Borealis parts from the article so they can remain in the Unreleased projects article and just focus it entirely on the episode itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There is always a possibility that Half-Life 3 will finally happen in the future. It will most certainly be a different entity and project from Episode Three altogether, even if it does salvage plot elements which were meant to be used for E3. Haleth (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Bryce Dallas Howard
I think the article of Bryce Dallas Howard as potential to be FAC. I did a request of peer review, but came up nothing. I was hoping to find a mentor for it. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work. |
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Ralph Baer
Hi Masem, thank you for taking the time to review my edit. You removed it, as there is a source missing and I will be glad to provide what I have: I have some pictures showing the stone, esp. the binary stone in close-up and some of the stones in conjunction with the memorial. Also a picture where the described binary-code stone is visible together with some other stones. I cannot deliver a source for the interpretation, but what I have described is factual and does not need a source. Even if the intended message has a different meaning, it will not invalidate what I have described. The result is also reproducible.
I tried to find the "original author" of the stone on google, but to no avail. I can provide you my pictures over iCloud shared drive, as I was unable to upload here (does not accept content due to unclear copyright). The drive link is: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/006Uzg5SJ2ArLLTautb_hxwtQ#wikipedia
ThSt71 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I have additional information. The code in ASCII is Muir, as written. Muir is Kelly Muir. https://manchesterinklink.com/celebrating-ralph-baer-day-yes-there-will-be-a-giant-ping-pong-game-to-play/
ThSt71 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ThSt71: That works for the information you wanted to add , though it does need copyediting to be encyclopedic in tone. -Masem (t) 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Featured article mentorship for Euphoria (American TV series)
Euphoria (American TV series) was recently promoted to good article. Seeing as you have experience in 'contemporary TV shows', and based off of the advice Z1720 gave, I'm seeking you as a mentor for the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 April 2022
- News and notes: Double trouble
- In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia
- Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)
- Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March
- Interview: On a war and a map
- Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers
- Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion
- News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?
- Humour: Really huge message boxes
- From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization
April 2022
For some time now I've been following the films of Denis V. and have been thinking about moving the Dune film article towards peer review in either GAN or FAC. After looking at you edits there, would you be interested in doing a conomination for the article for peer reviewed promotion? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause: yes, I can help on a contamination (co-nomination).--Masem (t) 21:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've started the sections on Set design and Costume design for the Dune article at this time which others have now expanded. With those two sections added now, I'm inclining towards going straight for a co-nomination for FAC possibly this Friday, if you are still ok on helping as a co-nominator at FAC. How does Friday sound for it? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Apology
I'm sorry I drove you crazy all day. Can you ever forgive me?DJBrimstorm (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Block creepy and stalking reverter.
Masem, there's a user that is following, stalking me (seems a new user for his/her number of edits, but joined 7 years ago in reality), and is using my user name's and IP's chronology's to track and revert all my edits, with excuses that don't justify their erasures, clearly non-neutral. I please you to block him/her at least temporarily for now, because I don't feel safe. The name of the user is NarkySawtooth. Thanks. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I only can readily see two instances of them reverting your edits, which is very difficult to categorize as stalking. --Masem (t) 12:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
How can all he/she know all the pages I edited and revert them all in the same exact moment/instant (and with the most absurd reasons)? Is it a coincidence? And they did it again. Please, do something. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sock blocked↑↑↑.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Neal Adams
On 3 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Neal Adams, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
Dobbs lead
Hey Masem, I've been watching Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization because of...recent events...and I wanted to just touch base with you on your recent reverts to the lead. By my count you're at 3, so you may want to change tack and request protection at RFPP among other methods of dispute resolution. I'll keep an eye on the page and protect myself if I see things get out of hand, but wanted give some friendly advice since I expect things at that page will get worse before they get better. — Wug·a·po·des 04:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have already added to the talk page that adding to the lede is premature at the moment (after my second revert). Just that its likely editors will not read the talk page before rushing to add to the top. --Masem (t) 04:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I left you in your talk page a message I'd like you to read, Masem. Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability guideline
You previously participated in a discussion about an editor adding something to the Notability guideline. Despite consensus being against it, they put it back in anyway. I am contacting all those who discussed it previously.Wikipedia_talk:Notability#pointless_essay_linked_to_by_its_creator Dream Focus 02:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Naomi Judd
On 4 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Naomi Judd, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
Immersive Sim classification
Hi, there is a discussion I had started about where to classify Immersive Sims on the article's talk page some time ago. Most of the websites (not authoritative I agree) seem to put them under simulation games rather than action adventure. Bringing this to your attention.
Vinay84 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Survivor Tables
I worked on some more of the Survivor contestant tables today, including Survivor: Island of the Idols, which was almost immediately reverted. Is it even worth it to continue trying to fix these tables if the work is just going to be invariably reverted? Bgsu98 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stop changing the tables. They are fine as they are, The Survivor Borneo table is absolutely atrocious looking. Keep everything as it was 2600:1700:3850:1ED0:F0E9:1A0C:70B7:3CA9 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not looking to getting into an edit war, but there are persistent reversions to the voting table on Survivor 42. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Ibox upright
Regarding Special:Diff/1087222820, the template doc provides guidance on changing upright/width values at Template:Infobox_television#Calculating_"image_upright". As far as I know, the default for the TV infobox is 1.13 to accomodate title cards (like at Breaking Bad), but since Squid Game uses a poster instead, I figured the default infobox image setting of "1" was more appropriate ("1" is the default value seen in film infoboxes, for example). — Goszei (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Hotel Saratoga explosion
On 12 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hotel Saratoga explosion, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
No biggie, BUT...
My queen's current quandary is "mobility problems", not "COVID conditions". Like all publicly infected officials, at least officially and lately, asymptomatic to "mild". But there's nothing on the market to treat or prevent progressive debilitative nonagenarianitis...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Vangelis
On 20 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Vangelis, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC) |
ITN recognition for Colin Cantwell
On 24 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Colin Cantwell, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) |
CreecregofLife
I do apologize for you having to get dragged into this whole mess on the Rescue Rangers page. It seems CreecregofLife has a history of being argumentative and getting into edit wars. I'm doubtful starting a thread at ANI would make any difference based on the past times it's happened, but it feels like talking to a brick wall, and I'm honestly starting to get tired of it. I'm starting to wonder if it's better to just forget the whole thing and move on, but I also don't want to reward bad behavior. You've always come across as level-headed in our interactions over the years, though, so if you've got a sugggestion in this case, I'd be willing to trust your judgment. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 May 2022
- From the team: A changing of the guard
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
- In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis
- Featured content: Featured Content of April
- Interview: Wikipedia's pride
- Serendipity: Those thieving image farms
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?
- From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia
- Humour: A new crossword
Spinal Tap
"No, we don't write like this in an encyclopedi)" - of course we do! It's explaining the joke. Your reverts seem rather prissy. Arrivisto (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- We don't need to explain jokes in an encyclopedia. There's a style and tone we are to maintain. --Masem (t) 16:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have a look at Saul Goodman, where it says, "Jimmy ... drives a signature Suzuki Esteem with mismatched doors, a visual pun reflecting on Jimmy's current poor self-esteem at this stage of his life". In other words, a joke is being explained, quite properly. QED. so I propose to restore the Spinal Tap explanation. Arrivisto (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The connection between the car and Saul there is sourced, so that's not an issue. There's no source that discusses the connection between the band name and the medical procedure to that level of degree, so unless a source like that exists, its not appropriate to "explain the joke". --Masem (t) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have a look at Saul Goodman, where it says, "Jimmy ... drives a signature Suzuki Esteem with mismatched doors, a visual pun reflecting on Jimmy's current poor self-esteem at this stage of his life". In other words, a joke is being explained, quite properly. QED. so I propose to restore the Spinal Tap explanation. Arrivisto (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
How is Altered Beast not the First 16-bit game in North America?
Hey why do you need a source for an obvious fact? There was no game prior to altered beast on any home console that was 16-bit Altered Beast was the only game available for the genesis in august of 1989. The other launch titles appeared with its National Release in September 1989.[1] Genesis had two launches in the U.S. - A test market launch in New York City and L.A, on or around August 14th, 1989 and a nationwide launch in mid September 1989. Please dont be Stupid use your brain. Altered beast was the first 16-bit game in north america.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:8CAE:7811:3980:D987 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's synthesis and original research to make the claim that AB is the first 4th gen console game. Just because it was the game that shipped first with the Genesis doesn't necessarily mean it was the first game. That's why you need a source that makes this claim. --Masem (t) 01:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I did. I wasn't calling you stupid by the way. I said don't be. Here is another source AB was released on August 14th 1989 (only game available at this time) the others were realsed on September 15th 1989, when it was released nationwide.[2]--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:8C3D:AE9:6D27:B3FF (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Problematic user
You may want to keep an eye on this user, they have a history of bad edits.
References
- ^ https://forum.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?111913-Games-that-did-and-did-not-launch-with-the-Sega-Genesis-in-September-1989
- ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=DbFxAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&dq=genesis+september+1989+launch&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG6b66y5f4AhVElmoFHcLLDowQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=genesis%20september%201989%20launch&f=false
Turning Red earnings
Hey there, sorry for my edit on Turning Red. I'm unsure how Wikipedia handles stating the earnings of movies that did not have theatrical releases. A budget of $175 million with a "box office" of $18.8 million makes it look like a flop, but that's because its box office only accounts for the few international theatrical releases.
Are there any projections for how much the movie may have earned its producers via new Disney+ subscriptions or other metrics? Or perhaps could some disclaimer be added to the box office values to explain the apparent disparity (especially in the infobox)? It confused me, after all. RoverdriveX (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
BCS
Thank u for reverting my good faith edits on Better Call Saul and for explaining the reasoning for your revert. That was very nice of you. But I just wanted to ask your input - do you think it would be better if that sentence was updated to say "brilliant but vindictive and ill" - since Chuck's bullying of Jimmy is a fundamental part of their relationship together? The sentence's fine as is but I thought that'd be an improvement. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Cast section format in Jurassic World Dominion
Masem, I need you to take a look at the cast section format of Jurassic World Dominion and look at the cast section in diff here. Then go to the article's talk page here to express your opinion about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
On 24 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. El_C 16:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC) |
File:Littleprince.JPG
Hi Masem. Do you have any idea why File:Littleprince.JPG is being flagged for a NFCC#9 violation on betacommand's report page for its use in User talk:Lepetitprince.hat. False positive perhaps? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Likely reading the first copyright tag it comes across, being the not-PD in US one, so it may be thinking its non-free. --Masem (t) 12:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. Whatever the reason was, JJMC89 bot also saw it as being non-free and removed it from that user talk page. The file was actually added to that user talk page more than a year ago by an administrator (whom I'm assuming wouldn't have done so if they thought it was non-free); so, I'm curious as to why the bots are just noticing it now. I'm wondering if there's been some recent change (e.g. some change to WP:WikiData) that somehow triggered the bots to now notice this specific file. Do you know if there's any connection between WikiData and files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No idea, its only my guess as there's also a bug in the MediaViewer in the past that would only show the first copyright tag it sees even if there are more permissive ones. --Masem (t) 20:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Do you think that file needs to be tagged with {{Wrong license}} or should be discussed at FFD? The description provided for {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} states that it's not a valid copyright license and that "a valid license template must accompany this tag or this file will be deleted. A review of files is currently underway to verify that this template has been applied correctly. Files that are copyrighted in the US and that have not been released under a free license may be deleted, unless an appropriate non-free license and a Non-free use rationale is provided." If this is non-free, then it currently has WP:F4 and WP:F6 issues; if it's PD per {{PD-old-70}} in the US, then the bots shouldn't be treating it as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you just need to flip the order of the license tags to put the PD one first. We may also need a different cat beyond Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates for non-license ones so that a bot like JJMC89 would not see that (and make sure the bot operators know of this). --Masem (t) 13:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you're suggesting in principle, but it this case the file doesn't have a non-free license or a non-free use rationale. It has a PD license and "Not-PD-US-URAA" (which is technically not a valid license); so, it's not clear why a bot is picking this up as being non-free unless it because of the way the file is categorized. I will ask JJMC89 about this. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- You'd have to check with the bot, but if I were programming a bot to pull the first copyright license, I'm going to use a template that is in that category. And because there's non-license templates in what is expected to be only license templates, we get this problem. Masem (t) 01:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- The file has now been tagged with {{Wrong-license}} by a different bot (Fastily's bot) an was also flagged for being too big a few days ago by JJMC89 bot. Something seems to have happened within the last few days or so that has suddenly made the file noticeable to bots. The most recent non-bot image was this one adding "Not-PD-US-URAA" and that seems to have been what has changed things. That was a bold change that might have been correct, but it's also one which now makes the file non-NFCC compliant because no non-free license or non-free use rationale were added by the user who made the edit. FWIW, that account is only about two months old and all of its edits so far have been to file pages and file licenses. The edits seem to be OK for the most part and the user seems to be familiar with file licensing (at least more familiar than a complete newbie would be expected to be). They might not, however, be fully aware of the ripple effects of some of their edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- So the short term fix is just change the order of where the Not-PD-US-URAA is placed, put it after a legit license flag. But the long term is to figure out what the bots are using (if they are using the category) and then we just need to fix the not-a-license templates out of there. Masem (t) 00:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The file has now been tagged with {{Wrong-license}} by a different bot (Fastily's bot) an was also flagged for being too big a few days ago by JJMC89 bot. Something seems to have happened within the last few days or so that has suddenly made the file noticeable to bots. The most recent non-bot image was this one adding "Not-PD-US-URAA" and that seems to have been what has changed things. That was a bold change that might have been correct, but it's also one which now makes the file non-NFCC compliant because no non-free license or non-free use rationale were added by the user who made the edit. FWIW, that account is only about two months old and all of its edits so far have been to file pages and file licenses. The edits seem to be OK for the most part and the user seems to be familiar with file licensing (at least more familiar than a complete newbie would be expected to be). They might not, however, be fully aware of the ripple effects of some of their edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- You'd have to check with the bot, but if I were programming a bot to pull the first copyright license, I'm going to use a template that is in that category. And because there's non-license templates in what is expected to be only license templates, we get this problem. Masem (t) 01:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you're suggesting in principle, but it this case the file doesn't have a non-free license or a non-free use rationale. It has a PD license and "Not-PD-US-URAA" (which is technically not a valid license); so, it's not clear why a bot is picking this up as being non-free unless it because of the way the file is categorized. I will ask JJMC89 about this. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you just need to flip the order of the license tags to put the PD one first. We may also need a different cat beyond Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates for non-license ones so that a bot like JJMC89 would not see that (and make sure the bot operators know of this). --Masem (t) 13:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Do you think that file needs to be tagged with {{Wrong license}} or should be discussed at FFD? The description provided for {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} states that it's not a valid copyright license and that "a valid license template must accompany this tag or this file will be deleted. A review of files is currently underway to verify that this template has been applied correctly. Files that are copyrighted in the US and that have not been released under a free license may be deleted, unless an appropriate non-free license and a Non-free use rationale is provided." If this is non-free, then it currently has WP:F4 and WP:F6 issues; if it's PD per {{PD-old-70}} in the US, then the bots shouldn't be treating it as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No idea, its only my guess as there's also a bug in the MediaViewer in the past that would only show the first copyright tag it sees even if there are more permissive ones. --Masem (t) 20:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. Whatever the reason was, JJMC89 bot also saw it as being non-free and removed it from that user talk page. The file was actually added to that user talk page more than a year ago by an administrator (whom I'm assuming wouldn't have done so if they thought it was non-free); so, I'm curious as to why the bots are just noticing it now. I'm wondering if there's been some recent change (e.g. some change to WP:WikiData) that somehow triggered the bots to now notice this specific file. Do you know if there's any connection between WikiData and files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 June 2022
- News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks
- In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down
- Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?
- Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, mass drafting bid pulled
- Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose
- Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed
- Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals
- Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter
Fringe: "Unearthed"
I know this is an old subject, but since you were the one of the main Fringe editors, so I was wondering if you had an opinion on this matter: Talk:Fringe (TV series)#Unearthed. Thanks! Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Elon Musk's comments on employees at WP:BLPN
The editor I reported has made a fifth edit [1] with the false information:
- In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.[1][2][3][4]
This editor reported me for 3RR and the WP:AN/3 admin said I need Talk Page consensus to change this. What should I do? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Question on reliability of primary sources
Hello, I saw that you took part to many discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability recently. I've been browsing that page looking for an answer to a question that has surely already been asked in the past and discussed somewhere. Maybe you have the answer, or can direct me to where I could find the answer.
The question is about the notion of "source" and whether it includes (apart from the work itself, the creator of the work and the publisher) also the individual who is interviewed or whose statements are reported in a published source. We may call this individual "primary source", I imagine, and the source publishing their statement would be the "secondary source". So let's say that a reliable secondary source publishes a statement by a non-reliable primary source on the subject "Whatever". We have an article on "Whatever" and the question comes up on whether to include the statements by the primary source, with attribution, as reported by the secondary source. Editor 1 says that that is OK in principle, because the notion of verifiability applies to the secondary source only, and the source is fully reliable. Editor 2 says that reporting a statement by an unreliable primary source fails 5P2, because we are not striving for verifiable accuracy citing reliable authoritative sources: although the primary source is quoted with attribution to the source, the reader might not now that the primary source is non reliable. So the question is: who is right, Editor 1 or Editor 2? Is there a straightforward answer to this? If so, where could I find it?
I hope you don't mind my asking and thank you for your help.
P.S.
I just stumbled upon this essay that maybe answers my question, although I'm not entirely sure it does. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- My take would be the first editor..the reliability of the secondary source means that what was said by the primary source can be consider verified. This doesn't make the primary sources true or the.lile. only that they said, and thus attribution is usually necessary, eg "Y said X' when using the secondary source that interviewed Y. Masem (t) 17:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The Rolling Stones FAC peer review opened
Hello Masem! I see that you are listed at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC. Would you be able to take a look at The Rolling Stones by any chance and provide feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Rolling Stones/archive2? I have some (read: done a couple) experience with FAC and am hoping to take that article through FAC following another GOCE copyedit and would appreciate any feedback or suggestions that would make the process easier. Thank you for your time, regardless! TheSandDoctor Talk 16:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Barnstar for you for your 15 years of work on Grim Fandango
Dear Masem, for your continuous and significant contributions on Grim Fandango for a decade and a half and still going, I would like to present you with this barnstar:
The Video Game Barnstar | ||
To User:Masem for your continuous and significant contributions since 2007 and all the way to today in 2022 (15 years and counting) to the Grim Fandango article. Al83tito (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
I look forward to continuing to contribute to the article together with you and others, hopefully meeting your high standards of quality! :-P Best, Al83tito (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- ^ Brodkin, Jon (June 1, 2022). "Musk to Tesla and SpaceX workers: Be in the office 40 hours a week or quit". Ars Technica.
- ^ Bursztynsky, Jessica (June 1, 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla workers to return to the office full time or resign". CNBC.
- ^ Jin, Hyunjoo; Datta, Tiyashi (June 1, 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla staff: return to office or leave". Reuters.
- ^ Mac, Ryan (June 1, 2022). "Elon Musk to Workers: Spend 40 Hours in the Office, or Else". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 1, 2022.