I finished, you can check out my work (there wasn't very much to do). --Niemti (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sad thing is I broadly agree with you Niemti but IMO your confrontation attitude stinks. I tried to get you to engage in WP:BRD and received a warning for it. *sigh* -Oosh (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Hi Masem. I'm taking this offline as it seems I'm still not being clear. The criteria in NSPORT, such as playing one game in the NFL, presumes that the NFL player meets GNG. I understand it only takes one source that says one game was played to establish NSPORT. My question was, if I was to take one of these players presumed notable by NSPORT, how many significant sources at a minimum should we expect to find—not just in the WP article, but total either online or offline?

Looking at it another way. If I wanted to add criteria for a new sport, how many minimum sources should an athlete for the sport be demonstrated to have 99% of the time in order to allow it to be added to NSPORT? I'm looking for a consistent test to add new criteria to NSPORT, or to reaffirm existing criteria that are questioned. I hope that is clearer (or perhaps I should let it lie). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearer in what you're trying to find. But as to answer it, it's hard to say, because, again, the GNG is not about number of sources but the amount of coverage, and I've mentioned the caution on exacting the number of sources. That said, if one were to develop a new criteria for NSPORT, I would expect that at least 90% of the people that would fall under that would have significant coverage in 2-3 separate sources (eg not all three from Sports Illustrated), with at least one being a regional or wider-coverage source. In considering the general application of GNG topics, having about this many and type of sources usually prevents a topic from going to AFD or if it does, being closed as kept. But you probably need to get consensus in the first place for that but if you can say "Hey, I've looked at X number of athletes that would fall under this and they all seem to be notable, so I'd like to propose this criteria..." --MASEM (t) 00:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it will remain as fuzzy logic, with everyone applying their own subjective criteria on number of sources and weight of local sources. In the grand scheme of things, most articles that "should be deleted" are deleted, and I guess people are generally content with status quo. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the deletion discussion, the consensus said: "keep but no longer use". In other words, once remaining sections have been closed, NFCR will be "historical". That's why I removed unreplied reports. --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the closer at WP:miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review said that there may be no consensus there to mark it as "historical". Still, I don't see archiving unreplied reports at this time, especially at a low traffic. --George Ho (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! After following some discussions like the deletion review of List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, I would be personally interested, if you would like to tell, about what benefit you see for users of Wikipedia and the project as a whole, if e. g. the information that a Dreamwraith is an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons monster published in Dragonlance Adventures was removed from Wikipedia. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that information help a reader, completely unfamiliar with D&D but need to learn about it, to understand the work and impact of D&D? If not, it becomes specialist information which is important to people that play the game but not to the overall readership and thus begs to be listed outside of WP (if not already). --MASEM (t) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see your point with regard to some Wikipedia policies. I still do not understand: What is the positive benefit of NOT having the information? Daranios (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain you know this, but just in case it was unclear, I do not in any way feel that you were suggesting anything untoward towards me. My comment was not directed at you but merely to proactively deal with possible future accusations by others (and in hindsight maybe was a touch harsher than I may have needed to be).

Regardless, if this was in anyway misunderstood, you have my sincere apologies. - jc37 02:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom for things which need to be addressed. Tea with toast (話) 01:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Masem. I am pleased to announce that the article has passed review. Please see the talk page for additional comments. Since you nominated the article under the "Theater, film, and drama" category, I placed the article under the "animation" subtopic; however, perhaps a better place for this article is under "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures" within the Social Science category. This is just a suggestion. Thanks for your work! --Tea with toast (話) 03:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to no longer enforce the NFCC. Instead I created a template at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:NFCC issue note 3 which I would use to tag articles with problems regarding the NFC criteria. This template will force tagged pages to appear in a category listing all files tagged with that template. Then admins or whoever wants to patrol this category could review the use of non-free files in the tagged articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to be specific about the image(s) that are afoul in question within the template, maybe up to 3 , and beyond that just go "multiple images have problems...". That does seem like a solution to work with short of bots in place. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the template. See my sandbox for how the template looks like with up to three files specified. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's better. I can't remember if NFCR was going to be "closed" or not, however, as a result of the MFD, so you may need to figure out where discussion is better held (I don't know if we've decided that though) but irregardless the basis of the template seems fine. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could always list a non-free file at WP:NFCR after tagging an article and include a parameter to link to that discussion from the template. Btw., if I do that, should I list the file or the article at NFCR? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me for piggy backing, but saw this discussion when posting further below. Toshio, this template will fail. I say that because {{non-free}} has failed. I don't even bother using it anymore. It's routinely ignored, almost never sparks discussion, and articles remained tagged for long periods of time (sample). This template would be no different. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there is a difference as Toshio's template is specifically pointing to images not on the page as a whole but by themselves that fail some part of NFCC, whether its something easy like #10c or more of an subjective question if something meets NFCC#8. The former template just says, tersely "Hey,, something's wrong, I can't tell you what, but fix it.", this new template at least specifies what images are a problem, possibly could include what the problem is, and thus makes action easier to perform. There will still be resistence in the first place in some cases, that's unavoidable, but that at least don't make handling NFCC a thing of mystery to most and why it can be resentful. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the template and included parameters to specify what particular problems a file has (see my sandbox). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, I agree that there is a chance (perhaps even a high chance...) that the template might be ignored. But at least it would give us an opportunity to perhaps include something in WP:NFCC saying that a file on a page can be removed if the page was tagged for XY days and no action has been taken. It wouldn't really reflect what NFCC currently says, but it might let appear the NFCC enforcers a bit less like 'zealots'. Of course (as someone having done quite a bit of NFCC enforcement himself) I believe most of my 10c enforcement edits have been 100% correct. The problem with NFCC however isn't really only about who 'acts' correctly. It is also about who 'appears to act' correctly. I can say that I personally absolutely dislike some the attitude shown towards the NFCC enforcers. Unfortunately, just because I dislike it doesn't mean the problem disappears. The NFCC enforcers are in a weak position compared to the people complaining about NFCC enforcement, simply because it doesn't seem to be helpful or useful in the eyes of the average editor. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should try to look at this whole thing from another perspective. Think of it as an undercover mission. We are working towards achieving a higher goal on behalf of her majesty behind the scenes and we must prevent what's going on to be visible to the public. Perhaps I am just crazy. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with NFCC maintenance as "undercover" is going to tick a lot of people off. I know what you're suggesting isn't that way, really, but we need to avoid acting secretive on the matter. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, perhaps "undercover" was a poor choice of wording. What I mean is that the NFCC enforcers are working on a different level than the average editor. What the NFCC enforcers do doesn't appear to be useful to the masses, because most editors don't see the bigger picture this is embedded into. I am quite sure most editors have never heard of the Licensing policy resolution. Heck, I guess many editors don't even have an idea what the Wikimedia Foundation is or how it is related to Wikipedia. In contrast to that, I believe most of the people who had their hands on the NFCC business have a bit more of a picture of the whole thing, ie. that Wikipedia is a Website run by the WMF, that we have to adhere to US copyright law because the servers are located in the US, that there is something like a fair use law and that we claim to adhere to that law when using copyrighted material by trying to comply with our EDP. That's what I meant with 'undercover'. I choose that word, because, like an undercover agent we are on a mission serving the higher goals of some obscure institution and we do that between the masses of all other editors. They have no idea of those goals and thus they only perceive what the NFCC enforcers do in public (at Wikipedia, in the articles etc.), they don't see what we talk about on some obscure discussion page relating to an even more obscure policy that doesn't seem to have any useful purpose.

Thus I agree with you we need to avoid acting secretive. We need to make our actions transparent. This seems to become more of a marketing campaign than anything else. We have a product we want to sell (NFCC enforcement) and we have to make it fit the taste of our customers (the editors of Wikipedia). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Told you so :) Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_June_4#File:Discovery_Channel_International.svg. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, I thought I was just adding to what you wrote, didn't realize i'd deleted your comment. sorry. --KarlB (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the link for my Game Informer ref. I read the print edition of the magazine, so while I appreciate the usefulness of being able to click on a ref and check it out for oneself, I didn't have the urls at hand. Again, thanks.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GI is usually pretty good about online republication of its feature articles about a month later. And as noted, the quote as it stood was weird out of context (makes sense in the GI article context) so just needed a bit of clarification. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, I just wanted to let you know that there has been some dispute over whether or not Okami should be included in this list. For the background of the discussions, please read this. I don't really care either way, but if you think we should include it then given the past history of disagreements on this subject I think we should look for another source that specifically states that Okami is an "art game" instead of just an example of a game that is art. The issue is definitely not helped by the fact that the talk page from "games as art" really applies more to "art game"... :\ Anyway let me know what you think is best. -Thibbs (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there's a difference. I think the reason for adding it now (knowing that we have that separate article) is that the designers wanted to recreated sumi-e watercolor looks specifically within the game. Yes, the game is known as a work of a art, but it was developed that way, which (at least to me) puts it in "art game" category. That is, the distinction should be based on whether the game was set out with specific "art game" goals in mind. Yes, one could argue that when a dev states their going for a particular art style that means the game gets included, but there are "common" art styles like cell-shading, and then there are things that are rare for the video game world ala sumi-e here, the film noir/german expressionism of Limbo, and so on. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see that it is an artistic game and some of what you are saying was my motivation for originally adding it to the earlier list, but since it was removed in the past I think I'll still try to look for a source that explicitly calls it an "art game" just to alleviate future problems. To be honest I don't think that the list itself is a very good idea for the article since it's bound to become overrun in time, but anyway that's another issue. -Thibbs (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful input regarding the recent notability discussions. We don't always agree but I can tell that you've put a lot of thought into the issues. Check out the essay I wrote at WP:TWOPRONGS which is somewhat similar to your proposal to separate the GNG from the rest of the notability policy. It's not fully baked yet, but I think it's heading in the right direction. Ultimately notability is two things, "worthy of note" which is a completely subjective value judgement, and "has significant coverage" which is necessary for us to write verifiable articles that aren't perma-stubs. We often use the latter to indicate the former to dodge the subjective value judgement, but in the end they are two separate criteria. Gigs (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a third prong that is based on ultimate quality that an article can achieve. I'd have to review my archives to figure out what the concept of it was, but we expect that every article, in time w/ DEADLINE concerns, can reach, at minimum, GA-wide, and any appropriate A-class Wikiproject requirements. This implicitly includes articles conforming to NOT and NPOV but also that they can't be permastubs, etc. However, this is not a fully fleshed out idea. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Internet phenomena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Salon and PCWorld

Portal (series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Lampoon

Seven (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MacMillan

Ōkami (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to High definition

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem, got a policy question. I haven't been able to find a place to ask about this and I wasn't sure which if any incident boards would be appropriate. A user popped up today with some odd edits and clear admittance that his original account is indef blocked. I'm uncertain if there's a policy concerning this. He's posted in some places that his brother was blocked (Help Desk), but on his own user page to "message me if you want to know my original indef blocked account name". He's posted twice to two different talk pages about a user named "Donuthead" which appears to currently have no visible edits (But a warning on talk page) and claiming some sort of harassment. These were the edits I found odd.

Is there something to look into here, or would it be dependant on him/her taking specific reportable actions? The user is User:GodofUndead30 who popped up on some VG talk pages today. His odd edit summary on Minecraft caught my attention initially. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are looking for WP:EVADE, basically that if the account was indef blocked, creating a new account is a no-no. What it sounds like you need (which I can't do) is to have a sock puppet investigation checked even if the new account is not yet being disruptive. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. -- ferret (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started it here. Feel free to fix issues as I continue to work through it. --Teancum (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of You Don't Know Jack (Facebook game) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the coauthor with Peter Jaszi of *Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright* and am somewhat aware of the complications caused by images on Wikipedia. I wondered if you're going to Wikimania; I'll be attending and would love to talk. Pat Aufderheide, paufder AT american.edu and Paufder (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to attend this. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super-nice DYK. Well done! 68.12.15.83 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --MASEM (t) 15:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Talk:God of War II#Disagreement over characters section. JDC808 (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: You were a past participant in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geography). That discussion on a draft proposal is active again and might benefit from your participation. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of creating itbut wasntsure of itsnotaility overrecentism. If you create it andadd some ill be fglad to work through it.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have I done this right please? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As best as I can tell, everything is fine with that. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem. One of my articles is currently a GA nominee, and I struggle with a particular sentence that the reviewer asked to be fixed for grammar. Since you are a native speaker (I believe) and have much experience with GA/FA-level writing skills, I ask if you could look at the fourth paragraph of A Song of Ice and Fire#Writing process ("The story is written to follow principal landmarks...") and give it a sweep for Grammatical tense, which I guess is the problem. Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done. your english is superb. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is talking about a work still in progress, the tenses seem fine (examples set in past, rest in present). Assuming book 7 is the final of that specific series (irregardless of spinoff), you probably need to make what is present tense into past tense once the publication date for book 7 is known. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

irregardless is not a word. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

piss on my cheeks Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently using a wifi system whose predictability is rather questionable, and that's being somewhat polite there. I did notice the duplication eventually, and tried to remove the duplication, but got caught in an edit conflict with you. Thank you for having caught the mistakes as quickly as you did, though, and sorry for the duplication. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your statement on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not‎:

"we can write something into NOT that we aren't a devotional compendium, just like we aren't a study guide or the Cliffs notes for non-religious works." --MASEM (t) 03:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does your analysis also fringe on articles like Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:4, Genesis 1:5? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 03:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some singular passages like John 3:16 may be notable beyound just being a passage, but when all that is being said is the various translations, that belongs at Wikisource (which already has this information). --MASEM (t) 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ty   — Jasonasosa 04:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, many, many passages of the Bible, and several other religious texts, do have substantive discussion of them in multiple independent RS's. This would include virtually every "story" of the Bible, and, in several cases, some of the more notable "events" within those stories. I personally tend to think that, dealing with the Hebrew Bible alone, we probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of at least a hundred articles that can be constructed on the basis of those stories and events which would present a quick summary of them and serious academic-religious discussion and interpretation. To me, the main question, I guess, is whether they should be presented as one article, showing all the variant interpretations, and/or how many articles on views from specific faith traditions should be created in addition to those basic articles. Just an opinion, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to discussion certain parts of religious texts based on broader stories and concepts rather than by verse and chapter. For example, the Creation aspect, the Garden of Eden, the cruxifiction of Jesus, etc; certain verses may be highlighted in those discussions appropriately. But I would argue, for an encyclopedia, unless the singular verse has gained widespread notoriety like John 3:16, or probably a handful for the Psalms, individual articles for each version makes no sense; it's far too much undue weight on a mundane aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, actually. Most of that information is probably most relevant to the article on the specific translation or version of the Bible or other text being used. We do have individual articles on virtually every major Biblical translation I know of, so adding such material there, or maybe for major verions like the King James Version to one or two spinout articles on that individual translation or version might be in general the best place to go. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that each major translation of the Bible is located at Wikisource; and looks to be the same with the Torah and other similar books/writings. So that's yet another argument against just having bare articles here. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please remember to upload a Commons image to Wikipedia (and tag it {{uploaded from Commons}}) before transcluding it on the main page. Our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, so a vandal can replace the file there (which has occurred on multiple occasions).
As a fallback (not a first-line measure), a bot cascade-protects our main page images at Commons, but this isn't immediate. (In the case of File:PIA14309 fig1.jpg, it took approximately 15 minutes.) Also, the bot occasionally has outages, so it isn't 100% reliable.
Thank you! —David Levy 21:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give Transformers: Prime a similar structure to the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic article? I already rearranged a bit, but... well... JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've been having a dispute with a fellow wikipedia user over upcoming game titles that use Games for Windows - LIVE. User VividNinjaScar has been adding Resident Evil 6, Devil May Cry and Lost Planet 3 as titles. None of which have been confirmed. I've searched for sources everywhere, however I can't find any definitive proof that they will use Games for Windows - LIVE for these games. The only source I've managed to find on Resident Evil 6 for PC was from the Capcom forums where Capcom USA Senior Vice President Christian “Sven” Svensson who says the PC version has not yet begun development.

I was hoping if you could please offer a third opinion on the article, to decide whether Resident Evil 6, Devil May Cry and Lost Planet 3 can yet be added. And If there is sufficient evidence for them being Games for Windows - LIVE titles. Thanks Smeldridge 15:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I did not express myself very well in that edit summary. I dislike plots that say things like "the film begins...", which seems like an inappropriate wording to me. I think this wording could be improved, definitely, but my edit summary did not communicate that very well. What do you think? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this article when you have a chance? I'm pretty sure the images have some serious problems. First of all, they're not necessary, but more importantly, I think the image licensing on them is incorrect. I know you're a bit of an expert on images, so I wanted to see if you agreed that they should probably all be removed from the article and deleted. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are from commons so the issues have to be noted there, but the uploader does appear to be claiming that as an employee of Legacy Games, he can upload those as free, which is probably not the case; just because you work somewhere doesn't give you rights to its IP to relicense. The character images all need to; the cover art is acceptable but probably needs to be considered non-free, this all baring that they can prove that they are free images likely by having them submit an OTRS ticket from the company itself. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment saying that the List of Masonic Grand Lodges could be classed as a directory. I tend to agree, and have been wondering if it should be sent to AfD (despite the fact that I spent a lot of time working on it). However, I have some questions:

• The Freemasonry Project finds this list very useful... especially when it comes to AfD discussions about non-notable Grand Lodges. We can point to the list to correct erroneous assumptions that a lot of editors may have... a lot of non-masons assume that all "Grand Lodges" are a large, important, and notable entities. They assume that there is only one "Grand Lodge" in a given area and, since Freemasonry is notable, the body that rules it in a given area must be notable as well (I see this argument a lot). The list graphically and clearly shows how splintered Freemasonry actually is... and helps non-masons understand that not all "Grand Lodges" are the same. So... if the list is deleted from main space, is there some way to keep it in project space (so we can continue to point to it when needed)?

• Would it be better to delete, or to trim? I suppose we could limit inclusion to NOTABLE Grand Lodges (requiring that all entries have an article before they are added to the list)... However, that would create some NPOV problems - most of the Grand Lodges that pass the notability criteria at WP:ORG are from one particular faction of Freemasonry (the one that is predominant in England and the US). It's simply a matter of sources... the Grand Lodges in that one faction get discussed by independent sources (historians and the like), while the Grand Lodges in other factions tend to be overlooked... not sure how to get past that.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not having any idea, what are some of the "characteristics" one can describe a Grand Lodge by? For example, if there is documentation on the size of the membership typically serves, then you can always reduce inclusion to those that (on average) are above a certain size. Inclusion based on notability is always a last-ditch means of doing so but if you can find some other non-WP-based metric to use to limit the list first, I'd find that. Deletion is probably not an answer since here you are looking at a list where many of the entries are notable and ergo would be more navigational than a directory. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Masem. I have expressed serious concern about whether we should obtain a strong consensus about the use of "Top X lists", even though we have an RfC going on at WT:VG/GL and I have already notified some other users about this discussion, as well as the appropriate village pump and the Video games WikiProject. Lately, I have been thinking about something, since I have already refactored my question as the original poster of the RfC in question. I was wondering if we should let the RfC go on for a little longer. However, if nothing develops over the next couple of days, I think we might possibly take it to dispute resolution. Any thoughts or opinions about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just got my second notice of an orphaned image in two days. Yes, the CD cover and poster are similar. Why should that exclude the album cover from being used? The album used to have its own article but it was apparently decided to merge them (I can respect the reason why though); however, the album cover uploaded originally for use on that article is still there and usable on the album infobox. Just because the album cover is the same as something to do with the movie itself doesn't necessarily mean it should be excluded. Can you indicate to me why this should be the case? I'm sure there's some policy about this? CycloneGU (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases when cover art is used (regardless of film, CD, etc.) the art is not specifically discussed in the article; the significance of its use is to meet WP:NFCC#8 in that it carries implicit branding information about the work specifically being discussed. Yes, when the CD is being discussed on the film page, that would seem to be the same thing, but when the film poster and CD are essentially the same and both being used to demonstrate the branding, then one of them is redundant and we strive to minimize non-free use. Since the film is the primary work, this makes the CD cover unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 07:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So just because the CD cover and the film posted look the same, it's all right to assume that the average random user is going to know this? Maybe I'm just being naive here; after all, I'm getting automated bot notices from two different bots about an orphaned image that I tried to fix. Besides, in the past, I thought policy was to discuss the album on its own page; as designed now, it's part of the film page as an afterthought, wherein the film page (I thought) should link to the CD page as a "main article" or something. CycloneGU (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the album needs to be notable to be on its own page. I believe that it is not, that's probably why it was merged back to the film in the first place. (If it was on its own page, notable and all) then the CD image there would be ok. As for the image, the point is that unless cover art is being discussed, it is only there to demonstrate branding and not for the user to be able to identify the CD if they were shopping in the store. So if the poster and CD cover are nearly the same, its duplicating the branding information and therefore one is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Owing to legal disputes, the CD was pulled off of the market a month after its release" - this does not make it notable enough? How many CDs get pulled from market over legal disputes? I think many look at the fact the album hasn't charted and say, nope, not notable unless Billboard recognizes it...and I always thought this fact made it notable.

It did have its original home as well; I added the image to that article in the first place. I should research the discussion to merge. CycloneGU (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Contacted the person who made the move without discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 11#File:Topological map of TFL rail systems.svg, even if it was to vote to delete my diagram! :p I have replied to your message, just in case you're not watching the page. Cheers, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

BioShock Infinite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Verge

Double Fine Happy Action Theater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Verge

Manos: The Hands of Fate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kevin Murphy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert: link. You can't remove cited information simply because we're discussing a merger proposal that you don't like. If the content is verifiable, directly related to the article, properly formatted, in the correct section, and encyclopedic, it should stay. –Throwawaytv (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material is sourced properly on the Bronycon page, which you are trying to merge in prematurely before consensus is decided. I'm not removing sourced information. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this complaint to dispute resolution. You are removing content that is verifiable, directly related to the article, properly formatted, in the correct section, and encyclopedic, and you're removing it because you disagree with a merger proposal that is in progress, which is separate from this edit, even though it deals with the material in the article proposed for merger. —Throwawaytv (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you have trimmed down that section as to try to justify the merge (your focus on duplicate content) before the proposal is agreed on. Between the two articles, that infomation and sourcing is retained. If the merge is agreed on, then the change is fine, but not before then. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merge is proposed on account of overlap. I explicitly stated that the issues with the article (uncited claims, synthesis) are not related to the merge. —Throwawaytv (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You created that overlap by the way you trimmed BronyCon and changed the fandom article! You're manufacturing the reason for the merge before the merge has been approved. Furthermore, all your changes to BronyCon [1] are removing proper information that is appropriate and necessary to include to summarize the fandom and the reason that Bronycon was founded in an encyclopedic manner. There's not even a link to the fandom article on that page anymore. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm responding to the third opinion request. Apologies that you seem to have had to wait a few days. Please sit tight and I will get back to you. Formerip (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Since the merge didn't happen and the article seems to be stable, I don't see the need to give an opinion. If either of you thinks I'm missing the point and would still like an opinion to be given, please ask and I will. Formerip (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - noticed your comment on the WQA closure RFC. There was a mixup when the thread was opened proposing closure - WQA won't be redirected to ANI at all - just marked historical - we're focusing on changes to the DR process page to add more self-help for conduct issues. More details at the thread. Thought you'd want to know. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masem! I've been away. Would such really happen or was that hyperbole? I know things have changed, but really! Dlohcierekim 03:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only saying that if every petty argument that WQA normally filters got to ANI, admins would become rather jaded and simply block editors for reporting petty quarrels. It is not presently that bad, but I can see that chain of events going that way. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just on this - did you see the possible alternatives that were discussed - namely WP:SANITY and a rewritten WP:DR page that offers more guidance on how to resolve one's own disputes? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comment before was made before the alternatives started coming about, or based on a few that felt ANI should be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense - I think it'd be really great if more people contributed to a new WP:DR page - policy needs a lot of input. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi. Can you please explain how to put the reasoning behind the use of an image across multiple articles into the file description? Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what I did on File:SA Navy AB rank.jpg (as an example); basically you just need to duplicate that template but change the "article" parameter for each article its used in , and update any rationale. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Kim Jong Un.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an incompatible license. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where would you be able to change the colors at? --Nobo71-Wikipedia.org 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Stribe/color}} --MASEM (t) 15:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an example please --Nobo71-Wikipedia.org 17:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you edit that page, you'll find template code. All you need to worry about is the three lines for the tribes of this season which are :

|kalabaw = background:#B10211; color:white; |matsing = background:#08399F; color:white; |tandang = background:gold; color:black;

You just need to replace the BG colors with the ones you believe you have found, and then save the page. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The World Ends with You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've requested to renew authorization for my bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2. You recently participated in the discussion about it at ANI so I wanted to invite your opinion. Thank you! Dcoetzee 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I was right that the ninth episode of the Great Escape took place in the One World Trade Center in Long Beach. I wasn't 100% sure that it was that building at the time. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2] confirms it. --MASEM (t) 09:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I voice my opinion on the matter? I have valid reasons why I think it improves the wiki page for SMB. I've talked on the "talk" page but never recieved a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.96.129 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Masem. If you have the time, would you like to take a look at my proposal regarding the character's notability and give some suggestions on how to improve it there before we take this to WP:VG/GL? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that photo I mentioned at WT:NFC was a 1970 press photo. Would you be able to comment on what I said here? I'm asking you and another editor who I remember from the time I used to follow those discussions more closely. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. They've actually being doing reviews for a while now in their "Extra" section: http://cheatcodes.com/extra/ Monicabgalvarez (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While they may have been doing reviews, 1) we here don't yet consider CC a reliable source as listed at WP:VG/S (you can petition to see if it can be added as one), but more importantly 2) the review really doesn't say anything new that the other reviews from major reliable sites already say. It has a similar score, it makes points similar to the ones already made by others, and basically including it would be simply reiterating it. We avoid weighing down the reviews section of video game articles with too many reviews as we often link to aggregators that have all those reviews listed anyway. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my official "I don't like what you did but I'm not going to do anything about it" glare at you. No discussion necessary. dogman15 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted my edits back on the page Steam (software) (last reversion), except those regarding the dates. I left them as the US format. But please note that Valve has recently become an International corporation, having established a company in Luxembourg for its EU partners. (second part of section 11 in the SSA) (my mistake, I said Netherlands in my edit instead of Luxembourg). --86.5.226.63 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they're "international", because their original is US, we should be using US formats on that page, irregardless. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this image for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caine's Arcade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 16:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transilience Thought Unifier Model-11, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yazoo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With List of AT&T U-verse channels deleted (and then moved to userspace), perhaps we must do something about this category. --George Ho (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason your most recent AFD consists of those 10 articles in particular instead of the entire 76 at Category:Lists of television channels by company? -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) to avoid the usual catcalls "mass AFDs are bad" that typically come up, and 2) so that its possible to reasonably evaluate exceptions that should be kept. --MASEM (t) 11:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Hachikō". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why these articles have channel lineups and then are nominated for deletion. I don't know who mass-nominated them. --George Ho (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP went and added AFD to all the articles in that category, but I had no intention at this immediate time of nominating them, and since they never properly added them to the multiAFD I made, I don't know what to do. I've added at WT:AFD the proper procedure but haven't gotten anything back. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... although I'm not an administrator, the procedure by IP was improper and incomplete, as these articles are not exactly nominated for deletion. I'll remove them right now. --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the episode's logo an invalid use of NFC? -–Mabeenot (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no immediate allowance to use an episode title card for an episode. Screenshots for episodes need to show contextual significance, and be part of significant sourced discussion in the article. The logo has none of that. Moreso, the image that was selected, of the Gunslinger, was discussed and agreed to on the talk page, and is the subject of discussion about makeup and characterization in the body of the article, and thus is acceptable. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that the logo at the top of Asylum of the Daleks is allowed because there's one sentence in the "Production" section saying that the title sequence features a different texture? Logos serve as the primary means of visual identification, which has been an acceptable rationale for WP:NFCC#8 for logos of television shows, film franchises, businesses, universities, and countless other logos included in Wikipedia articles. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even on Asylum it's not allowed. However as a show logo it is okay at the main Doctor Who show page. But episodes don't have logos, they have title cards, and those are not normally allowed unless they have contextual significance. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Would a single image in the article for Series 7 that compares all five logos be allowed if the logos are discussed in the body of the article? The image would be akin to the current collage of the doctors: File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and there's a significant difference. First, your montage would be considered 5 separate NFC uses (one for each image), so that's a bundle. Now yes, the 11 doctor image also has a significant burden, but the facet of the Doctor having a changing actor/face over the years is a well-established fact that is easily able to justify using a single montage image (considered as 10 NFC since the 11th doc image is a free image). Now , I am aware that there's been some that note that the title card has used the same logo with different "skins" for each episodes, but first, we're talking episodes, not a long-term series, so there's not any significance to that. Furthermore, we're also just looking at logo changes that just are "skins" and not really significant; the changes can be described in text about that. So it pretty much would fail NFCC#1 in considering the "free" replacement (text descriptions). Now, we have no idea where this overall season is going. This could change by the end, but right now I don't see how we can justify the montage. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Spencer^T♦C 20:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

--Spencer^T♦C 20:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I actually got the email about the article and was reading it and thinking I'd add it to the article, and lo! It was there! I hope I wasn't stepping on your toes by nominating it. I've been meaning to get it up to GA for... what... three years or so now, but I've never gotten around to it! If there are any other Weird Al articles you'd be interested in editing, I'd love to help.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know we disagree, but that's not why I'm here, and do not mean to sound sarcastic and/or rude in anyway; just trying to be helpful.. On the iTunes version history main page, the banner for the AfD shows a red link for the discussion of deletion.. I thought about creating a redirect so users can see the discussion but didn't want to go over you, so to speak... I also am unfamiliar with Wikipedia code for the AfD banner and didn't want to mess it up.. Angstygangsta (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. Following your channel guide Afd, I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky on the same basis, for your information and perusal. doktorb _words^deeds 06:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your edit summary. Just wanted to say Fair enough :) MisterShiney (Come say hi) 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent contributor to The Shawshank Redemption I call your attention to this reopoened discussion with JTBX, the same editor who was restoring an older version of the plot and warring over it and is at it again. Comment of any kind is appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm new around here... so I'm still trying to learn the formatting and proper way to do things. 0_0 Sorry, if some of my formatting is way off.

I posted the information on Ōkami and how much the game had been reported played. Specifically, "It was reported in October 2012, U.S. Wii owners had more than three and a half million hours of gameplay reported playing Ōkami Wii, with the average play-time being just over 25 hours "Per person"."

The piece I posted was reported by Capcom, and the data image and story was linked on GoNintendo.com as well: http://www.capcom-unity.com/gregaman/blog/2012/10/02/okami-reportedly-quite-substantial http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=186776

As for the information not being "published" that is what CoffeeWithGames does. Data stories. Uses a capture device, records the Nintendo Channel information every week, and then screenshots the information for the data images, and it can all be 100% verified on the Nintendo Channel.

Kotaku used to do one post a month on some of the information, but stopped because it took them too much time. Here's their old one: http://kotaku.com/5530696/the-20-most+loved-wii-games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjdoyle (talk • contribs) 07:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main problems. First, the site CoffeeWithGames, being a single user blog, will never qualify as a reliable source, regardless of the assurance of the data path from where they get the channel data. It being reported by Capcom in their blog doesn't make it reliable. If it was Kotaku doing it, that would be different.

Second, more importantly, what's important about this data? We don't have PS2 numbers to compare against so we have no reference if this is good, bad, or what. We can't even use the number for sales data because there's no way to differentiate purchasers and used games and rentals. It's a curiosity more than anything else. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "reliable" source? CoffeeWithGames' editor, writer, poster, whatever he is considered, was the site that contacted Kotaku, about publishing incorrect information in one of their data posts and they corrected it because of the contact. CoffeeWithGames' data stories and news pieces have been published in stories or talked about in podcasts on IGN, Destructoid, Kotaku, Capcom-Unity, GoNintendo, NintendoWorldReport, Joystiq, 1Up, GameInformer, EGM, and many other sites. The information provides how many Wii owners had reported playing the game at the time, but more importantly gives the overall average the game has been played.

So, what makes for a "reliable" source, when the source you are questioning has been the main site/source publishing Nintendo Wii data reports for the last 3 years? Are you saying having more writers on a site makes it reliable? There are examples on "large" sites with lots of writers, where wrong information is published and not even corrected after it is brought to their attention. In a court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty, and the data provided and the stories written for 3+ years covered an a variety of sites would show the source in question as reliable? No? Johnjdoyle (talk) 4:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS, particularly WP:SPS regarding self-published sources. But again, I put forth that the data itself is not encyclopedically useful, and more a curiousity with nothing to compare again to know if that's high, low, or the like with other games or with the previous PS2 version itself. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Symphony video game screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ea vs zynga lawsuit screenshot comparison.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ydkj 2011 game screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Okami hd comparison screenshot.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:The cave video game cover.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am really seeing a problem where no problem exists, I am not sure. Also looking at this again I admit that it might be a not very well thought out proposal and it seems like it will be rejected by the community anyway, a decision I can accept and respect.

So why did I make the proposal in the first place? A lot of the NFCC enforcement work that I (and other users) have been / are doing is over 10c issues, which (as Sven noted at VPR) is not the primary issue; if a use is appropriate under NFCC it should get a rationale for that use, if it is not appropriate under NFCC, it should be removed.

Your observation that there is a lot of frustration involved is of course correct as we both know, especially with respect to 10c. Perhaps removing 10c violations instead of adding a rationale is a poor idea, if a valid rationale can be created, I am not sure, but the policy explicitly places the burden to provide a rationale on those who want to use NFC. I would accept adjusting the policy in a way that if it can be reasonably expected to have a valid rationale created for a specific use, then that rationale should be added instead of the file being removed. Removing a 10c violation currently is a correct action to take, but maybe not the best action possible, so I am supportive of adjusting the policy such that it should include applying common sense (though that is difficult as well, ie my common sense tells me that if we have a policy saying non-free media must satisfy the NFC criteria, then I should only use NFCC compliant media in articles - a difficult problem, I admit that. It seems like trying to find an algorithm for NFCC enforcement, when no such algorithm exists).

I tend to partially agree with Hammersoft when he says that NFCC enforcement is a waste of time, as I believe each day more new NFCC issues are created than existing ones are being resolved. Since it seems to be impossible to have a coordinated effort in the form of a WikiProject (which I proposed to get more people involved in the NFCC area, not to "militarize" NFCC enforcement) or automated enforcement in form of a bot (which is incapable of recognizing whether NFC is in compliance with NFCC#8 or not), I do not see how Wikipedia is ever supposed to be compliant with the EDP (WP:NFCC in our case), although the policy explicitly says all uses of non-free content MUST be compliant.

I also acknowledge that we are a volunteer project, so it is unreasonable to expect perfectionism with regards to NFCC, the issues need time to be detected, evaluated and resolved. I don't know what a working solution to all this would be. I don't think claiming that NFCC has been abandoned and thus we shouldn't care is the solution, but it also needs to be taken into account that Wikipedia does not have an infinite amount of editor resources (much less editors dealing with NFC issues), so it might be desirable to look for strategies taking such a development into account and enable fewer editors to deal with more problems (like NFCC violations).

Just had to spit that out. I hope you don't see it as a rant but as an explanation of my view on this. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I'm seeing is not that we have strict #10c violations in that there is a rationale on many of the images noted at NFCR, but that it is the lack of second and beyond rationale for each additional reuse. My opinion is that when you encounter an image used on a page without a #10c rationale, it should be removed immediately, but with message a rationale is needed. The image may be restored with a separate rationale, which is good, and then the problem shifts to minimal non-free use (#3a) which does need discussion as to whether each use is appropriate. But #10c failure removals should be automatic and need no discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of having a bot to remove non-free images being reused without a separate rationale. The exact functionality would need to be thought out carefully in advance, since the tolerance of errors or a bot running amok in that area tends to zero but that can be discussed (at VPR or maybe VPI). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what BetaCommand's bot used to do (Before he got blocked then banned) - I can't remember if it just tagged for lack of #10c or removed offending images directly, subsequently letting any orphaned images to be tagged by a separate bot. I think the removal (with appropriate messages on uploader/talk page message) is fine if the #10c metric is not obvious (per the Beta bot, the article, or a redirect to the article, needs to be explicitly named in the text of the file page; this leaves open that it could be one rationale serving multiple purposes but this is rarely the case). Anything more beyond that does require human interaction to determine appropriateness - eg if after removal, someone restores the image on 10 different articles and now having 10 separate rationales, the issue becomes #3a, which only can be sorted with human interaction). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups. Looks like more AFDs will come out of the first two. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 03:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm working on the article for Starflight, and I was considering adding a picture of the development team, Binary Systems, to the article. As far as I know, there is only one such image in the entire world, and it's from the game's original packaging. They are all wearing matching outfits in the style of the fictional world, standing in a mock-up of a starship interior. Is there any way that would be passable as an acceptable image? I know you're one of the experts on the subject, and a video game aficionado to boot, so I thought I'd ask you directly. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a hard time endorsing the image for non-free, in the sense that developers rarely have public faces to connect them to their work - for older musical groups or ones where the original membership cannot be recreated, we'd normally allow this, but the same's not really true for developers. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, yeah that's what I figured. Oh well, thanks for the response. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes by uploading newer versions of this image. Does it still pass WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know, this image is nominated as FFD. --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Phoenix and Hydra

BioShock Infinite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Verge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Masem. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In case you're still interested in these channel lineups, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Masem. If interested, see also a new AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People need to know team fortress 2 is made in australia so whats so wrong with writing it on the page i find it important that people know team fortress 2 is australian i only made a wikipedia account becasue that is important to me as an australian please stop removing it. and let it be

But I see this confusion in several Afd discussions, all claiming notable books do not make authors presumed notable because people do not inherit notability from books (per WP:CREATIVE the first part is incorrect). Wanted the clarification in the inheritability section somewhere; posting on the article talk page; will post links to some of those assertions to highlight the problem. Churn and change (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion, learned something new. I agree a textbook used in many institutions (but with no multiple reviews or coverage) is a case where a book fails to confer notability on an author. I don't see WP:BLP1E as applying to authors; if that was the original intent, then the wording has to be a bit broader than the current tight focus on "events" and examples of news events all over the place. Churn and change (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New iPad with touchscreen!--S. Rich (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is currently a discussion on the Passenger 57 talk page of which may interest you regarding a image in the plot section. Your input would be very much appreciated.

Happy Editing :) MisterShiney (Come say hi) 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm contacting you as you participated in the policy village pump discussion regarding ticker symbols in article leads.

I've posted a section here about next steps to take, specifically examining whether an RFC is needed to reach a clear consensus on this issue. If you have the time and/or inclination to weigh in, please do! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

I also meant to drop you a short note to say thank you for being a voice of reason and sanity in the related village pump discussion. I really appreciate it. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Well done on policing the articles people like me so dearly love! Keep up the good work. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In case you have any interest, I started a discussion here about case citations in article leads. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I support... I think it is useful advice. However, I do see the point that in the context of the WP:Notability guideline it might constitute Instruction Creep (it goes beyond just talking about notability)... Perhaps it would work better as the start of a separate guideline/essay? Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Was Alone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo, any possibility you might run this year? : ) - jc37 20:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blood drive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This still strikes me as inappropriate: for a user who already has a clear preference in the AFD to try and retroactively preface the entire discussion with his characterization of it. I already moved it to the end of the discussion,[3] but he just moved it back,[4] more or less admitting that he wrote it to try and influence possible "keep" voters rather than to simply provide a neutral summary (see bottom of diff). Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's trying to influence the AFD (either direction). He's free to create it, but it needs to be in the natural place it arose in the discussion, which is certainly not the lead of the AFD. Its effectively a refactoring issue, even if it is his own comments. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you jump in and move it back down? I don't want to become a one-man edit warrior on this. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. postdlf (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem! I see you've written that issue #1 of the MLP FiM comic is currently the best-ranking 2012 title; I've read the reference you put, and it merely says that with 100 000 pre-orders it stands out as "potentially one of the best-selling single issues of any title this year", which isn't quite the same. I was wondering if you had a more precise reference, since I'm constantly updating the Italian version of the article by basically translating the English one. Thank you! :) P.S. You would do me a huge favor if you could reply on my home wiki's discussion page. --Kamina✍ 21:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on your it.wiki page, but to note I added sources and fixed details here on the fandom page. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're super-efficient! ;)-- / Kàmina / 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamina (talk • contribs)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]