So, this has gone on too long, and at one point, even spread to Lewy body dementia. Williams' 70th birthday is next July, and I have requested that FA dementia with Lewy bodies run TFA on that day. The last thing I need is for that mess to appear at DLB when Williams is getting high page views! There have been multiple RFCs (as mentioned on talk), but the mess continues. What's the next step to get it to stop? A community-wide, advertised RFC somewhere? An ANI thread to get some sanctions in place? What can we do next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Probably a central page like VPP RFC to decide on what language to refer to suicide, likely proposing the various options that do exist, as to add to WP:WTW. Best I know we've never established any consensus and the best guideance I would say we go with is that this is a national variety aspect, though there is almost the newer preference for language. We have to watch for PRESENTISM issues too - "updating" older deaths with the more careful language may not be appropriate either. --Masem (t) 20:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can do that, because I am a disaster when it comes to RFCs :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can prep one. --Masem (t) 20:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could help, but we know I'm a toxic wreck with RFCs (anything I touch is guaranteed to fail :). Ping me to your draft? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft question would be "How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?"

The basic language I think would be something along these lines:

There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide". However, in many common law countries, the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "died by suicide" is more often used. Further, mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal and the alternate "died by suicide" is preferred. (refs, for example "Suicide and Language: Why we shouldn't use the 'C' word" by C. Beaton).

Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter, leading to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures. One can interpret the Use national varieties of English as a driving policy, but this doesn't address the advice of mental health professionals. It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus to WP:WTW as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.

I would then have three staring options:

1. Use the term appropriate to the national variety based on the person's nationality.
2. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting on the death
3. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.

And then having options for other editors to add their own as well as a discussion section. I would have it so that editors should only support only one or two of the options. --Masem (t) 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. But based on some other unrelated but nasty medical article experiences, I can see the national variety thing being twisted and wiki-lawyered if it's not really tightly worded. What do we do with mention of suicide on general medical articles (as opposed to a specific person, eg Williams), when Wikilawyers want to make national varieties out of everything ... like whether it is Down syndrome or Down's syndrome? The problem might go beyond a person, to the general mention of suicide anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this clearly needs to be limited to outside the medical field, basically in talking about bios and those in historical context. I would just add a line: This RFC only seeks to get the wording clarity for suicide on biographical articles and those articles that touch on biographies, such as historical descriptions that may need to place the death in context. This RFC has no impact on articles in the medical, mental health, and other social science fields, where editors should follow WP:MEDMOS on such terms. and if the RFC starts to verve to, say, Down syndrome or the like, we can say "that's out of scope." That's just RFC management. --Masem (t) 21:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there are Wikilawyers out there. Does the consensus that is established about Williams then apply to the language about Williams's death used at Lewy body dementia ? That is where I have had the problem ... the dispute at Williams spills over to LBD, and I don't even care what language we use! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe that's a fair question if there should be one guide for all articles or separate language for topics of medical-related articles. I am going to assume that the medical literature is less concerned on this compared to the mainstream press? We can make this a two part question, the second part being Should this advice apply to all articles, or should a separate standard apply to medical-related articles? --Masem (t) 21:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then, how about this hypothetical. Suppose there are two different LBD suicides, and each bio has a different conclusion: DLB and LBD have to talk about them in different ways? It gets messy because WikiLawyers, by definition, don't use common sense :) :) I don't know if the medical literature has different opinions, but WhatamIdoing may have followed that. And she's good at RFC formulation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we don't want the same article to have two different standards in place. And outside of setting up some baseline options to build on, I see this RFC as also brainstorming options. For example, in the discussion once this is started, if you feel its important, you can point out that you feel Wikilaywers will force certain things (a fair enough issue) hence why certain directions need to be set in writing. --Masem (t) 21:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough bad experiences have taught me that the less I say, the better :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, how many of the previous (very long) discussions have you found? They'd need to be linked.

I don't think that there is a verifiable/real ENGVAR issue here. All the people who want to destigmatize suicide want every English speaker to stop saying "commit suicide"; all the people who feel that the phrase died by suicide is gratingly unidiomatic want to keep saying it. It's possible that "killed himself" may turn out to be the compromise position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question has been hashed to death, and apparently since as early as 2004 (see Talk:Suicide). More-recently, MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019. I don't think there's an ENGVAR streak running through those discussions either, but review at will. I anticipate that (yet) another RFC would be "not this again"ed. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that list (I will add that to another draft soon) though my memory had the legal issue on the term as a factor. If that's not the case, I'll take that option out and just leave the pre-loaded options as "per sources" (which I believe naturally will have a national bias but we don't need to go there then) and "died by suicide"; if someone brings up the national/ENGVAR issue, that's that. But as I see, we really haven't had a MOS-style RF on this matter that's proposed language to stick and write down, hence the time to fix this and get it resolved. If someone complains in the future at least we have a widely held RFC to fall back on. --Masem (t) 01:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think every one of those that has a close box has been advertised on WP:CENT and/or at one of the village pumps, so I don't know about "at least we have a widely held RFC to fall back on". But, have fun with that... --Izno (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, outside of that last one w/ categories, none of them are "RFC"s proper which tend to be more weight when it comes to establishing policy in the future. I wouldn't use the other 8-some ones to write language to the MOS that says "follow sources" despite their weight for example. --Masem (t) 01:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGrams is telling, though (updated to 2019!). The distinction persists whether in American or British English. --Izno (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, wherever we end up, I am selfishly hoping to avoid TFA instability nine months from now. I hope to at least have a well-formed RFC participated in broadly enough that disruption can be shut down. I compromised at LBD with “suicide by hanging”, so there are other options. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same advocates who oppose "commit" also don't want you to mention the method at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SandyGeorgia, WhatamIdoing, and Izno: reworking the RFC question a bit to reflect the above points, adding in the list Inzo pulled up, taking out the ENGVAR part:
• RFQ single line question: How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?
  • There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide". However, in many common law countries, the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "died by suicide" is more often used. Further, mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal and the alternate "died by suicide" is preferred.(reflist provided)
  • Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter, leading to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures and related pages, as well as when the term is used on medical-related pages. Past discussions on the matter have come to non-conclusive advice of following the term used by reliable sources: see MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019) It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus to the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.
  • There would be TWO questions.
    1. First would aske what form should be followed for general, non-medical articles where suicide comes up, typically in biographical articles and related historical articles. Options would be pre-set with:
       1. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
       2. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.

       With options for editors to add other suggestions.

    2. Second question would ask if there should be different choices for language in medical-related articles from the first question, and if so, what should that option be:
       1. Use the same term selection as with the first question (single universal rule)
       2. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
       3. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.

       With options for editors to add other suggestions.

  • There also would be a general discussion section for both. --Masem (t) 13:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That first question pre-empts the status quo that "committed suicide" is appropriate, based on the long evidence above. I don't really understand why you would even suggest that. :) --Izno (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point; Take it as read that both questions will have an option "committed suicide" if this is posted in this state. --Masem (t) 17:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you pushing the story about "committing a crime"? First of all, everyone knows that people commit crimes without ever appearing before any court, much less getting convicted. The reason people get frustrated about accused people "getting off on a technicality" is that we all agree that they committed the crime but didn't get convicted for it. I suspect that a large number of people who frequently drink alcohol have at least wondered afterwards whether they technically violated drunk driving laws by driving home after a dinner out.

  Second, garden-variety suicide isn't a crime in most of the world, specifically including the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and India. In the case of these countries, this has generally been true for decades. I don't think that you should use that story at all, but if you're going to do that, then you need to make the sentence accurate, which will require writing something like "In a small number of common-law countries, such as Cyprus and the Bahamas..." and maybe add that it's likely that most editors have never lived in a time and place that criminalized suicide.

  Third, felonies aren't the only actions that people commit. Think about "Thou shalt not commit adultery". The advocates want to expunge the idea that the suicider did anything morally wrong, not just (or even primarily) the idea that it might be illegal.

  I share Izno's skepticism that this will resolve anything. It might, in fact, be worth stepping back a level and first asking editors whether they think that written advice would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Six-hour drive home from cabin, hotspot editing from ipad, will look tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm back. All three of you have studied and followed this issue more closely than I have, so I have nothing of significance to add. But I feared the issue would not be easily solved, which led to my initial post about what I will do during TFA when it spills over to DLB. I can see we may end up with voter fatigue ala "not again", but feel like we still should try. Maybe WAID's advice to ask others will help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just going off Inzo's list, we just never really presented the issue of addressing suicide as "we need to set some guidance on this, we need to figure out what the consensus is via a site-wide RFC." The only thing that we should try to be clear is that the defacto, non-written down approach is "follow the sources" right now, as would be the case for any other disagreements over terms of art in any other articles, so that should the RFC close as "no consensus", then the advice still falls back to "follow the sources" implicitly, and an RFC you can point to in case disagreements pop up ("hey, we have no consensus to change this from what the sources say, see this...") Leaving an explicit "follow the sources" option to be codified though is important as well. --Masem (t) 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That works. The best sources on Williams at LBD and DLB say "killed himself", "died by suicide", "death from suicide", "died from suicide" and "at the time of his suicide". I don't find the use of "commit" in them, and there are plenty of ways to rephrase without using the C word. That could be a good argument at the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See previous threads Inzo brougt up - the "criminilazation" of suicide is a running concern there, alongside the mental health issue (the latter more prevalent nowadays though). But I can reduce the importance of that to the mental health. --Masem (t) 18:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New revision:

• RFQ single line question: How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?
  • There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide". Mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal and the alternate "died by suicide" is preferred.(reflist provided) There is also a small number of common law countries where the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "died by suicide" is preferred.
  • Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter, falling back to the de facto standard of following the sources for selecting the appropriate terminology. This has lead to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures and related pages, as well as when the term is used on medical-related pages. Past discussions on the matter have come to non-conclusive advice of following the term used by reliable sources: see MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019) It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus, if such can be achieved, to the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.
  • There would be TWO questions.
    1. First would aske what form should be followed for general, non-medical articles where suicide comes up, typically in biographical articles and related historical articles. Options would be pre-set with:
       1. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
       2. Use "commit suicide" for all cases.
       3. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.

       With options for editors to add other suggestions.

    2. Second question would ask if there should be different choices for language in medical-related articles from the first question, and if so, what should that option be:
       1. Use the same term selection as with the first question (single universal rule)
       2. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
       3. Use "commit suicide" for all cases.
       4. Use "died by suicide" for all cases.

       With options for editors to add other suggestions.

  • There also would be a general discussion section for both. --Masem (t) 16:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some typos we would nail down before going live, but recognizing WAID's mention that "died by suicide" feels inelegant and ungrammatical to some who oppose it, could we expand that option to say some variant that avoids the use of "commit" such as "killed himself", "death from suicide", or "died from suicide" ? That's what I find in the DLB/LBD sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: (sorry last week got away from me) Yes, it makes sense to suggest those possible options as other replacements. Basically, I think its the divide bwtween "commit suicide" and a less harsh sounding option from those examples. I'd work the option to suggest that approach, like Use an option such as "killed himself", "death from suicide", or "died from suicide", as appropriate to context, for all cases.

Sandy, as well as @WhatamIdoing and Inzo: even though this might not solve something, I'd still like to try to get those posted soon, and want to see if there's any other major issues in terms of setting up the RFC. Even if it fails to resolve the question, it will have tested the waters and we can at least point to something when people keep changing language around, and fall back on that we generally don't change long-standing language like this per WP:ONUS/consensus-based discussion. --Masem (t) 15:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good ... will you list it at CENT? I have been pouting for days as I discovered that someone else has requested another TFA for the same date. Williams gets such high page views that I had so hoped to showcase the DLB article on his birthday, when more people will be looking him up and wanting to understand the condition But perhaps that is not to be :( Oh, well ... we still need to get this issue resolved. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my plan is a VPP posting for the RFC with CENT notice. I don't know if other specific pages should be notified too, perhaps the specific MOS pages in question since that's where I think the advice will end up, but open for other suggestions just to make sure to avoid canvassing concerns. --Masem (t) 16:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wp:med and wp:wpbio SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we had proper voting software, then I think that choosing a list of suitable options would be a lot easier. A voting system like we use for ArbCom elections might work out: your support for Phrase #1 could be nullified by my opposition for Phrase #1, and in the end, editors could use whatever wasn't opposed by more people than supported it.

I think it's important to offer multiple options. A series of similar sentences might be helpful:

1. He committed suicide in 1980.
2. He died by suicide in 1980.
3. He died from suicide in 1980.
4. He killed himself in 1980.
5. He died in 1980. The cause of death was suicide.
6. His death in 1980 was due to suicide.
7. He suicided in 1980.

Also, I think you should read https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/why-the-ap-stylebooks-rules-on-how-to-talk-about-suicide-dont-work-for-me.html WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That is probably a good idea in terms of examples. In terms of responses, given this structure, I'm wondering if we just limit it to "only sign your name to options you would support; do not sign if you oppose an option, but you may discussion opposition to an option in the discussion section." I will add that Slate article to the references below for further reading. --Masem (t) 16:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By way of understanding the situation, could I recommend a little homework? Put "successful suicide" (in quotation marks) in the search box and see what you get. That's a phrase that nearly everyone (except maybe the euthanasia activists) recoils from. See what works when you try to re-write thosee sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We only have 36 uses of that phrase in mainspace, and several of them are in context of successful "suicide attack", "suicide bombing" or "suicide bunt", leaving maybe about dozen-some uses related to the term, and even then, half of them pointing to works of fiction. But you get to articles like Bullying and suicide and I'm not seeing an easy way to rephrase the passage There are about 100 attempts of suicide to every 1 successful suicide unless you go There are about 100 attempts of suicide to every death from suicide. --Masem (t) 16:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "successful [murder]" is such a great phrase, either, but sorting out the Bullying and suicide (and any similar) pages would be helpful.

I'm adding another sentence to the list of examples. It was inspired by the Slate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Powerful article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "successful" suicide from several articles.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To come back to this from thinking on this overnight, I think offering too many choices may be overkill. The key issue at play which leads to edit waring is specifically the wording "committed suicide" or variations on that, verses any of the options that omit the word "committed". (the variations in the latter are not causing the problem). This is the key factor; if the option is clearly for moving away from committed in all contexts, then the alternate form is a matter of a separate discussion but it seems premature to push that question since possible conclusions to the first point could retain "committed" versions and make that question moot. Offering too many options - at least up front in an RFC - can be a recipe for a bad RFC. So maybe the framing of the questions here should strictly stay around retaining "committed" or not, leaving the options as:

1. Use the term appropriate to the reliable sourcing reporting for that topic's area.
2. Use "commit/committed suicide" or grammatically-equivalent form for all cases.
3. Use a form that omits "commit" or "committed" (such as "died by suicide") for all cases. (adding the explanation that if this option was picked, further discussions on proper forms may be needed). --Masem (t) 17:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that #2 should be only that "'Commit' is acceptable, but not required". Nobody has seriously proposed that every single mention of suicide must use that word. The dispute is only when people remove the old idiomatic phrase in favor of less familiar, more stilted sounding phrases.

There is an ideological component in some of these phrases. To die "by" suicide is to mention a method; to die "of" or "from" suicide is to treat suicide as a disease per se (i.e., the desire to die is itself a disease, rather than mental illness being a disease that leads to suicide), similar to "He died of heart disease" or "She died from cancer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but what I think we don't want cases where, like on Robin Williams (where most sources used "committed suicide"), that the option we suggest says that this could be changed to the non-"committed" form since the language we're providing suggests this is option. So maybe option #2 is "Allow 'commit/committed suicide' or a grammatically-equivalent form to be used when supported by reliable sources"; or optionally, implicit to any option is that there's a "consensus required for change" component involved like DATERET. I'm not sure how to present that. --Masem (t) 16:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this. I think what you mean for #1 is really "Follow the stylistic choices of the reliable sources". (In practice, for most biographies, this will mean writing "He committed suicide" if most of the sources are from the 1990s, and "He died by suicide" if the sources are from 2020.)

And in that case, "Allow 'commit/committed suicide' when supported by reliable sources" is not materially different from #1. It is, at most, "Follow the stylistic choices of the reliable sources, even if those choices use the C-word".

If you agree that my analysis is logical, then that simplifies us to a binary choice, which often results in a decision being made: Either it's okay to use the C-word (if the sources did), or it's not (even if the sources did). Depending upon editors' preferences, the MOS would then acquire a sentence that either says something like "Although external style guides recommend against saying that someone has committed suicide, the traditional idiom is accepted in the English Wikipedia if that phrase is used in the relevant reliable sources" or "Avoid writing that someone has committed suicide; instead, write that he killed himself or that he died by suicide". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I think this is coming down to: do we follow the sources and thus allow "committed suicide" when it supported by sources, or do we take the step to remove that? (There may be other options that participants may also identify but the binary choice seems easiest). --Masem (t) 05:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshing language of possible RFC[edit]

• RFQ single line question: How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?
  • There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide" and its equivalent phrasing. Mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal, and the alternate "died by suicide" is preferred.(reflist provided) There is also a small number of common law countries where the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "died by suicide" is preferred.
  • Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter, falling back to the de facto standard of following the sources for selecting the appropriate terminology. This has lead to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures and related pages, as well as when the term is used on medical-related pages. Past discussions on the matter have come to non-conclusive advice of following the term used by reliable sources: see MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019) It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus, if such can be achieved, to the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.

The question would be:

1. How should WP phrase the death of a person if the death was confirmed to be by suicide?
   • Option 1 - Follow the stylistic choices used by reliable sources, including the use of "committed suicide" (or equivalent phrasing) if that is most commonly used for the specific topic.
   • Option 2 - Avoid the use of "committed suicide" even if used by a majority of sources, and instead opt for language like "died by suicide" or equivalent.
   • Other options as suggested by participants.

Refs below to use:

• Beaton, Susan; Forster, Peter; Maple, Myfanwy (February 2013). "Suicide and Language: Why we shouldn't use the 'C' word" (PDF). InPsych. 30 (1).
• "Language use and suicide: An online cross-sectional survey". Plos One. 14 (6). June 13, 2019. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217473. PMC 6563960. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Bosch, Torie (January 16, 2018). "Committing to "Committed"". Slate. Retrieved October 28, 2020.

I have to say these refs are basically useless, maybe downright unhelpful.

• The first is an language-change activism piece (which happens to have been published in a journal), so it's basically an op-ed – a primary source, advocating an opinion. And it's doing so about writing within a specific field, which is irrelevant for how to write WP. (And its repetition of the fallacy that "commit suicide" derives from "commit a crime" or "commit a sin" is embarrassingly wrong, as is the first half of its first sentence.
• The second work is more analytic, but it is analyzing the opinions of completely random schmoes off the Internet, not reliable sources like English-language style guides. And even it says "The scores for 'commit suicide' were most variable and spanned the range of acceptability scores." I.e., there is no consensus against it in general public speech and writing. And some of the phrases those authors were more in favor of (and at that point they just became just more op-ed material) were excoriated in the third source.
• No. 3 is a primary source, too. When it gets to facts and advice instead of life-history anecdote, it tells us a professional online journalists' views of many phrases, including negative views of ones various WP editors would rather use in place of "committed suicide", then concludes in favor of it. But this is just a "style fight" within journalism (news style, which WP does not use): the AP Stylebook says not to use "committed suicide", and to instead use other phrases, which that Slate writer opposes, and which in some cases did not score well in the second of these sources either (a survey that arguably matters for what AP Stylebook should advise, actually).

This stuff just does not help elucidate anything or point to an answer for Wikipedia. I've also observed that almost any time someone cites a handful of disparate off-site sources in an internal deliberation about WP:P&G matters (including our style guide), they are trying to push a viewpoint, or (more to the point) will be seen as doing so. This tends to kick off a war of ultimately irrelevant cherrypicking between "sides", polarizes debate further, and confuses people into approaching an internal consensus process like it's an article verification one. If such a trainwreck can even be closed with a clear consensus, it will often turn out to not be accepted and will re-RfC again later. (Which may be why this thread is even open at all.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming at this from the position that I could care less about which solution we end us using, and more to simply have something that can be put into a MOS with the backing of a strong consensus to document either the practice or the desired practice. I fully expect the answer to be the status quo, but the point of these sources is less about proving the need to switch but only to show that there is concerns out there about the language of "commit suicide" that may not seem obvious; it is not to debate the reasons why but that is is fundamentally around these reasons that people want to keep switching out the language. In other words, I'm not trying to justify the switch of language, only that the switch of language is not an option that came out of the blue. So just having a couple sources to show this is fine. --Masem (t) 21:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SandyGeorgia, WhatamIdoing, and Izno: please see the revised wording on the question to ask. It is about as simple as possible for this idea and the crux of the issue (do we change what RSes say to reflect more compassionate statements) There might be offshoot questions that come of this, but this would set fair ground to answer those going forward. --Masem (t) 19:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source says that "ended their life" and "took their own life" were also highly rated. I think we need to offer more options than just "died by suicide". There will be people who are content to omit "committed" but who are uncomfortable with the novel-sounding phrase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then we should establish Q2 then being "If we are to avoid 'committed suicide', is there specific language that we should use or should avoid, even when supported by sources?" This would be more open ended but keeps the RFC itself simple to the key point about the "committed" language. --Masem (t) 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that Q2 should happen at the same time. Just getting clarity on whether "committed" is permissible (when sources use it, even if the next editor doesn't like it) would help a lot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine. Maybe not saying anything towards the option 2's alternate language and if some editors start saying "But 'this form' is also bad and should be using 'that form' instead!",then we can call that a secondary RFC if needed after the first one is finished, as "committed" use seems to be the more troubling part. In other words, we're aware this could be a question, and one we avoided for now to keep the RFC simple. --Masem (t) 18:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that I want Option 2 to say something like 'Avoid the use of "committed suicide" even if used by a majority of sources', full stop.

  I also want the paragraph that has "died by suicide" in bold-faced text to get revised to mention multiple options. The question IMO to answer is whether "committed" is okay. I don't want people to feel like it's a binary choice. You can oppose "committed" and reject "died by" (e.g., by preferring "The cause of death was suicide".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is the “committed” word that most needs a decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so to rework to address this points (and if you feel more examples of alternate phrases -- not that we're deciding them now, just to help flesh out what the alternatives are, that's fine):

• RFQ single line question: How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?
  • There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide" and its equivalent phrasing. Mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal, and several possible alternatives that omit the "committed" term, including but not limited to "died by suicide", "died from suicide", and "the cause of death was suicide", are more preferred.(reflist provided) There is also a small number of common law countries where the act of suicide is considered to be a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "committed suicide" is avoided.
  • Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter related to using "committed suicide", falling back to the de facto standard of following the sources for selecting the appropriate terminology. This has lead to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures and related pages, as well as when the term is used on medical-related pages. Past discussions on the matter have come to non-conclusive advice of following the term used by reliable sources: see MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, VPPOL 2018, MOS 2019 (closed followon at VPPOL 2019), CAT 2019) It would be appropriate to add language to reflect consensus on the acceptability of "committed suicide", if such can be achieved, to the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts. This RFC seeks to find what that consensus is so it can be added to WP:WTW and establish this as a MOS.

The question would be:

1. How should WP phrase the death of a person if the death was confirmed to be by suicide?
   • Option 1 - Follow the stylistic choices used by reliable sources, including the use of "committed suicide" (or equivalent phrasing) if that is most commonly used for the specific topic.
   • Option 2 - Avoid the use of "committed suicide" even if used by a majority of sources.
   • Other options as suggested by participants.

This is nearly there. --Masem (t) 06:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow the style of sources" is a style fallacy on Wikipedia. They are not our source for how we write Wikipedia; we source them (where necessary) from what style manuals say on the point. Review WP:SSF. I'm sorry I didn't mention this earlier, but I don't think option 1 was really ever in the cards. That said, @SMcCandlish: You might want to take a look at this thread, since you will probably have a better feel for where this is heading and I'm sure will have a !vote on the matter anyway. ;) --Izno (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be the same idea behind COMMONNAME and similar MOS guidance. The idea being that this would implicitly cover the case of a suicide in a country where it is considered a felony, we'd likely be sourcing the country's papers where it would be spelled out as something other than "committed suicide", while if we were talking a death like Robin Williams in the US here, the majority of reporting will be from the US and will use "committed suicide". As well as allowing for the medical literature to use the case it wants. I don't know how to phrase that better but that's the intent I'm trying to get at. --Masem (t) 18:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... That still leads to the special-style fallacy. But besides that, my more fundamental concern is that you're introducting yet another variation. We have quite enough already. (I'll be sure to leave that at a comment later since you are bullishly continuing to pursue this discussion, rather than having heeded "we're tired of it" as I earlier indicated.)

This really does need a status quo option, and you seem to have removed (or never added). That's flawed and it's going to get this shut down on simple principle. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we don't have a documented status quo option, outside the typical advice that "we follow the sources" whenever such a debate over language comes along. The goal is to make something explicit to put into MOS and thus point people to it and this RFC as consensus when they try to edit war/complain about one form or the other on these articles. (as your list shows, we've had numerous isolated discussions but hard pressed to call a global consensus on that). Option 1 thus is basically formalizing the status quo so could be identified as such. --Masem (t) 19:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No! Status quo is "do what you like". That's what it means when we don't have something documented in questions of style (see MOS:VAR). The equivalent verbiage, explicitly in MOS, would be This MOS takes no stance on the use of the verb "commit" in the context of "suicide"., not "This MOS recommends following reliable sources in a specific topic area". The fact we've had multiple isolated discussions, at least one of which was in fact a major well-advertised discussion (please don't miscast that again, that's the second time you've done it, which tells me either you did not review the list or that you are trying to cast it as a lesser discussion than it was), indicates the status quo is "do what you want" (which most-often favors commit in point of fact). --Izno (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more nuances that are in the 2018 VPP and offshoot discussions from that, but I see what're getting at, that while we can let sources indicate which wording this is not a requirement or spelled out. So I've readjusted below. The only thing I see that comes out from the 2018 VPP is the potential 3rd option that there's no reason to use some of the more passive terms "died by/from suicide", but given discussion above, this feels like something to only ask if the de facto standard is clearly not the preferred answer. (Based on a current discussion [2], I think Mandruss has a strong point that WP does not "lead" these types of language shifts, however, I would let that be a argument to be made in the !votes to keep this as neutral as possible. --Masem (t) 19:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly, strongly object to any variant of wording like: 'Follow the stylistic choices used by reliable sources, including the use of "committed suicide" (or equivalent phrasing) if that is most commonly used for the specific topic.' Aside from the fact the sentence isn't even grammatically sensible (for two different reasons), this simply is not how WP is written. (The proposed wording actually has more of a CSF, WP:Common-style fallacy, problem than an SSF, WP:Specialized-style fallacy, problem, though both are implicated.) If it were actually WP's approach, then we would simply not have MoS pages, naming conventions guidelines, and the article titles policy; yet we do. WP does not leave each article to be cobbled together on-the-fly in its own unique style, drawing only from the styles used in sources cited for that topic. That would, in almost all cases under consideration for this particular matter, devolve to newspapers, magazines, blogs, news sites, and other material written in news style, which Wikipedia does not use, as a matter of clear policy. A further obvious failure of it would be that English-usage norms change over time, but for non-recent subjects, the sources are mostly going to be old ones, so this idea would force us to use, say, early-20th-century wording for some subjects even if it were no longer appropriate in contemporary English. Think of the fallout of that on an issue like, say, race and ethnicity in the United States.

No matter how well-intentioned, we should not even faintly suggest the notion of WP having to write stylistically like the majority of sources on a particular micro-topical subject. WP's style decisions are site-wide, and this is by design. Don't "go there" even to make some unusual exception (because it will always be used to argue for another exception, then another, then another). And there is no exception here. Repeat proposals to add "committed suicide" to MOS:WTW (or inject a rule about it elsewhere) have failed. The idea of RfCing this yet again is pointless rehash (and smacks of language-change activism), but if we're going to do it, let's do it well. And if the rationale for this was "It's meant to be the same idea behind COMMONNAME and similar MOS guidance", then that means someone doesn't quite understand similar MoS guidance, or COMMONNAME, or that AT is not a style policy, or that rationales for style guidelines and for points of style policy are largely unrelated. :-) WP:CSF actually covers a lot of that.

PS: "countries where suicide is a felony" is utterly irrelevant, twice over. We never, ever write about a suicided bio subject as a criminal for having done it. And the construction "committed suicide" does not derive from "committed a crime"; both are derived from general use of commit, which (in this sense) means 'to make a lasting or consequential choice, or take a lasting or consequential action' ("commit that to memory", "the commitment of our marriage", "committed to writing"). The fact that various language-change activists don't understand this and spin the bullshit story that "committed suicide" like "committed burglary" is a form of "committed a crime", has no implications for Wikipedia at all (other than watch out for yet another set of confused activists). They are linguistically and historically wrong.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RFQ single line question: How should we describe the death of people that has been confirmed to a result of suicide?
  • There has been general concern for how we describe the death of people whose manner of death has been confirmed to be the result of suicide. The language commonly used in some places had been "committed suicide" and its equivalent grammatical phrasing. Mental health professionals have suggested moving away from the "committed" language as it can create a negative stigma for those that are depressed and may be suicidal, and several possible alternatives that omit the "committed" term, including but not limited to "died by suicide", "died from suicide", and "the cause of death was suicide", are more preferred.(reflist provided) There is also a small number of common law countries where the act of suicide is or has been considered a felony, and to avoid the implication that the person was legally tried for a crime, the term "committed suicide" is avoided.
  • Currently, Wikipedia has no explicit advice on this matter related to using "committed suicide", falling back to the de facto standard of letting editors select the appropriate terminology when creating the article; once selected, this phrasing should not be changed without consensus discussions, as per MOS:VAR. This has led to some edit conflicts over the term on notable figures and related pages, as well as when the term is used on medical-related pages. Past discussions on the matter have come to some advice but which has not be documented into policy or guidelins: see MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019). This 2018 Village Pump discussion and this 2019 Manual of Style discussion (with a closed followon at VPPOL 2019) both concluded that there was no need to change from the status quo, allowing "committed suicide" if editors chose to use that language.
  • The goal of this RFC is determine consensus on the acceptability of "committed suicide", if such can be achieved, and to add language reflecting this the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts.

The question would be:

1. How should WP phrase the death of a person if the death was confirmed to be by suicide?
   • Option 1 - (The status quo based on the 2018 Village Pump discussion) Allow editors to select the phrasing which may include the use of "committed suicide" (or equivalent grammatical phrasing).
   • Option 2 - Editors should select phrasing that excludes "committed suicide" or equivalent grammatical forms.
   • Other options as suggested by participants.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I would suggest instead something like the following (which reflects changes introduced immediately above, while I was writing this):

1. How should Wikipedia phrase the death of a person, confirmed to be by suicide?
   • Option 1 - Use any of a variety of encyclopedically appropriate wording choices found in modern reliable sources for biographical subjects. Editorial discretion is left to the consensus of editors at a particular article. (The status quo, based on the 2018 Village Pump discussion.)
   • Option 2 - As in Option 1, except avoid the use of "committed suicide" (or other forms with "committed").
   • Other options as suggested by participants.

This gets at the intent of this line of questioning, fixes the WP:CSF/WP:SSF problems of earlier drafts, makes it clear that neither option here is "only one way", and indicates that unencyclopedic wording isn't going to be permitted ("offed himself", etc.), stops pointlessly repeating "committed suicide" when Option 2 already makes it clear that is the only issue here, and avoids linguistically wrong use of the phrase "equivalent grammatical forms"). But link to the 2018 thread.

However, the entire approach being considered in this whole discussion strikes me as unnecessary and even obfuscatory. The only real question that is (yet again) at issue is this one:

• Should "committed suicide" be permissible in Wikipedia as how to phrase the death of a person, confirmed to be by suicide? (The status quo, based on the 2018 Village Pump discussion, is that this term is a valid option among various encyclopedically-worded choices.)

No one is going to care about any other element of this, because there is no dispute about them. RfCs on narrow matters generally work better when they stay on-topic and ask a simple yes/no question instead of shotgunning multiple-choice about complex stuff (especially when none of the complex parts are actually at issue in the first place).

PS: Why is the multiple-choice version numbered "1."? Please tell me this is not just part one of a bunch of long-winded RfC stuff re-asking roundabout questions we don't need asked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "1." is leftover from edited down from two questions. Its only one question now. --Masem (t) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish, SandyGeorgia, WhatamIdoing, and Izno: I wanted to wait after the holidays to post this RFC, so using the recommendation from SMC, the language should simply be:

• RFC one-line Question:Should "committed suicide" be permissible in Wikipedia as how to phrase the death of a person, confirmed to be by suicide?
• Introductory statement:Currently, the status quo reflects this 2018 Village Pump discussion and this 2019 Manual of Style discussion (with a closed followon at VPPOL 2019) that allows for "committed suicide" if editors chose to use that language. (Other past discussions include the following: MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019 ) There are external directives that suggest moving away from this language primarily related to mental health issues (reflist here), which has led to some edit warring on articles on Wikipedia. The goal of this RFC is determine consensus on the acceptability of "committed suicide", if such can be achieved, and to add language reflecting this the appropriate Manuals of Style, both at WP:WTW and WP:MOSMED as to avoid further edit conflicts.

This would make the RFC basically be a yes/no/it depends-type response, which as SMC says, should simplify input.

If there are no objections I'd like to try to post this to VPP soon. --Masem (t) 05:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to nitpick the wording a bit. It should specify "articles" (i.e., not applying to all pages). I don't think we need to specify "confirmed", because the question will arise in sentences about uncertain deaths ("His family says he did not commit suicide"; "The coroner originally concluded that he committed suicide, but a second inquiry resulted in an open verdict").

I'd probably say "Should the phrase committed suicide be permitted in articles as a way to describe the death of a person as a result of suicide?" Or maybe even just "Should the phrase committed suicide be permitted in articles?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I would also object to "external directives"; they are not directives of any kind to Wikipedia, so this is misleading and argument to authority-laden wording. "There are external writers who suggest moving away from ..." would be more accurate, since most of the sources we've seen about this are primary-source advocacy pieces, or authors/editors of style guides for styles that have little in common with encyclopedic writing (and which see opposition from other people in the same field); I recall going over this stuff in some detail much further up this page. Also, missing word in "reflecting this the appropriate".

While I agree this is getting to RfC-able language, and I appreciate Masem's patience and marshalling of all this input over such a long time, I'm not sure it will bring us any closer to guideline wording. As it stands now already, it would be fine to go edit the relevant MOS page with something like the following (with an embedded footnote):

When writing of a death by suicide, use any of a variety of encyclopedically appropriate wording choices found in modern reliable sources for biographical subjects. In particular, no consensus exists against the use of committed suicide on Wikipedia. But avoid euphemistic and editorializing expressions, such as died by his own hand or took her own life. Editorial discretion is otherwise left to the consensus of editors at a particular article.{{efn|Previous RfCs and other consensus discussions include: [Cite all those old discussions here.] Euphemistic wording about suicide is common in journalism, but Wikipedia is not written in news style and does not follow news stylebooks. As in most matters, contemporary nonfiction books from major academic publishers provide better models for tone and usage in encyclopedic material.}}

That is in fact the status quo, as all of these past discussions demonstrate, and as reflected in our quality articles. While yet another RfC isn't going to hurt (other than increasing "issue fatigue" about this), when it also ends with no ban on "committed suicide" and declines to overturn EUPHEMISM and EDITORIAL, something like this drafted addition should be added immediately in the best page for it and cross-referenced from the others, so this stops being a perennial re-re-re-fight. I would say to put it in the well-read and frequently-watchlisted MOS:BIO, with a cross-ref from MOS:MED (which hardly anyone reads and is more about medical jargon and avoiding giving medical advice or writing as if for medical journals), and a cross-ref from MOS:WTW (which is being relied upon for some don'ts, but isn't the right "home" since committed suicide is not "words to watch" and won't be. The two bad examples I gave would be good to integrate into EUPHEMISM and EDITORIAL, respectively, in WTW.) If this RfC doesn't actually launch, such wording should go into MOS:BIO anyway. After some likely kvetching and tweaking, I'm quite certain it would stick, given the talked-to-death-for-years-already history behind this.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could add that the intention is to reflect the past discussions/status quo in RFC, and this is just to make sure that there is not a large consensus against it. I know its duplicative, but I think we have something then that then can be added to the MOS talk page as a permanent pointer to where consensus was affirmed for the language so that when people say "no you can't use 'committed'" we can point to this and never have to worry about the question for some time.

With those points, rewording would be:

• RFC one-line Question:Should "committed suicide" be permitted in articles?
• Introductory statement:Currently, the status quo reflects this 2018 Village Pump discussion and this 2019 Manual of Style discussion (with a closed followon at VPPOL 2019) that allows for "committed suicide" if editors chose to use that language, and it is intended to add language to the appropriate MOS (MOS:BIO at minimum) to reflect this consensus. (Other past discussions include the following: MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019 ) There are external writers that suggest moving away from this language primarily related to mental health issues (reflist here), which has led to some edit warring on articles on Wikipedia. The goal of this RFC is verify consensus on the acceptability of "committed suicide" prior to committing language to the MOS reflecting this consensus, as to eliminate continued edit warring over the term.

We can add the suggested wording that SMC has proposed too as what will be added, but I think that's not needed at this stage, but can produce it if asked. --Masem (t) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point of fine-tuning, I am good with whatever you all come up with. Remember, this is not an area of expertise for me, and I only came in to this because I want the endless bickering at Robin Williams to stop, and not to spread again to Lewy body dementia, upon Williams’s 70th birthday this July. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you have knowledge of Electronic Arts. I was wondering if you could help me create an article about EA Desktop. SoyokoAnis 05:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this is basically the extention of Origin (service), so I'm not sure if you would need a wholly separate article here. --Masem (t) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the regions on PlayStation 5? It is important to know the Wikipedia readers. :( MeowMeowClub89792 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For en.wiki, we really only worry about the major english speaking regions. --Masem (t) 03:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the Japan (the official language is Japanese) which is only they spoke is Japanese and South Korea (official language is Korean and English), The Philippines (official language is English and Filipino). And The India is English and Hindi. The other country can spoke english and the other country don't like Japan. MeowMeowClub89792 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they dont speak english in Japan MeowMeowClub89792 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is where the PlayStation 5 so its also reasonable to include that. It's just that we have to have a cutoff for practicality of how many countries for where consoles or games are released in. --Masem (t) 04:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! If this is not bothering you, I'm currently looking for comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)/archive2, before being GAN-ned. New to vidgame article stylings, so expect some flaws. I have also a hard time simplifying the overview section, said to be jargon-y. Looking forward to your comments. GeraldWL 13:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krafton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMO.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why you are reverting the my adding of " (stylised as killer7)" to Killer7. Could you explain? --HiccupJul (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple capitalization situation which we've determined at the VG project doesn't need special highlighting in prose (as WP generally ignore when titles mess with capitalization and the like). We only consider alternate styles when there's different characters that are used (like in Fear 3). --Masem (t) 14:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. --HiccupJul (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to if possible, have a discussion with you regarding the proper generation for the Nintendo Switch. DesuDemon (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of defining the ninth generation, and how the Switch should be defined, has been a point of discussion at WT:VG for a while, as we want to avoid mistakes of the past. --Masem (t) 03:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you this questions because you started the RFC on "commit suicide" phrasing. I recently saw "suicide by gun" as cause of death in an infobox and I was tempted to shorten it to just "suicide" but I didn't know if there was any consensus on that. Do you happen to know or recall this being discussed? Mo Billings (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the intent of the RFC was to answer that. That seems to be a decision to leave to talk pages if it should be shortened or not or change wording. --Masem (t) 23:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that wasn't the point of the RFC. I just thought you might have encountered something about this while preparing the RFC. Thanks anyway. Mo Billings (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, short of anything around the "commit" aspect. --Masem (t) 04:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:No Time to Die poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 24th Annual D.I.C.E. Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per you comment here [[3]] did you mean wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or wp:WRITEGREATWRONGS. I'm guessing the former though the latter is rather funny and might accurately describe some of what is done around here :D Springee (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a query: did you single-handedly promote the entire Guitar Hero series to featured topic? I was looking to see what the largest FT was, and saw a whopping 31. If so, why did you choose to do this series? And how long did it take? Panini^🥪 02:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Legend of Zelda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page College Humor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only send two Blue Sky Studios films Ice Age: Collision Course and Spies in Disguise to box office failures due to the recent shutdown of this company this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A858:6B00:6403:783F:9442:C201 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film losses are are too low to be considered for the table, which need to be >$75M with inflation. --Masem (t) 14:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Could you please not revert my edits, as you did on GameStop short squeeze, then add the exact same thing. It feels a little bit rude. If it was that you thought I vandalized then realized I answered an edit request, feel free to inform me. 4D4850 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4D4850: I accidently hit a button on my watchlist to cause the revent and immediately undid it. It wasn't intentional and your edit is restored. --Masem (t) 14:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had only realized that was what happened after I made this talk page. Thank you. 4D4850 (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem! I'm conducting a feature for the video games newsletter similar to that of a survey. I'm going to ask users their opinions on a specific matter and highlight unique and common answers to determine consensus on a subject. Your input would be very valuable, alongside others, to help answer this question.

The question is: How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?

Panini^🥪 10:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it has to meet the WP:GNG, but more specifically, for a character, I'm looking for:

• Design or development information specifically about that character, more than just a sentence or two. Ideally, information like inspiration for the character's personality and look, and art influences, and if an "acted" role, actor selection.
• Reception about the character specifically, ideally separated from other gameplay facets. Discussion of the character should be more than just one sentence in the source but a good discussion of the character.

Coverage only coming from "top 10 character" lists lacking in-depth discussion should be avoided. --Masem (t) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, Thank you for your input! Panini^🥪 15:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I post a diff here or email you about a revdel? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Masem (t) 15:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry to bother you but you were at the top of the currently active admin list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but just as a point of future reference, you can ask for similar help over at WP:ANI for exactly something like that revdel if you cant' get anyone quickly in the other channels. --Masem (t) 15:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I've seen someone request revdel there the first three replies are people saying "don't request it at a notice board or you'll draw more attention to it." Should I just post that I have something that needs revdel and to reach out to me to get the diff? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a good point and advice. --Masem (t) 16:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am working on getting Plants vs. Zombies to FA status. The article recently passed a WP:GAN review by User:J Milburn. I have the article currently on peer review and would like someone to review the article and do some mentoring of the article for a future WP:FAC nomination. Lazman321 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can help, yes; I'll wait till after peer review is done to avoid interfering in that. --Masem (t) 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, thank you very much for your suggestion at NPOVN regarding the dispute over a photo. I just wanted to let you know that I've incorporated the new photo you suggested and that the dispute has been resolved.

I also wanted to ask one thing that I'm a little curious about: what is your opinion concerning this discussion here? I would really like to know what you think about my points presented here and how I can improve next time when situations like this occur. Thanks, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you are a mentor when it comes to music articles for FAC. I was wondering if you could please help me with prose issues for Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon? I really want the article to be FA. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video games by country has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop undoing the fixed capitalization; let’s play is not a proper noun, please revert your changes it’s very annoying that the term “let’s play” is always capitalized on Wikipedia.CapiFixer (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what in the world makes you think that let’s play should be capitalized!? —CapiFixer (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all reliable sourcing discussiong the LP phenomenon use "Let's Play" as a proper noun to describe that. We need to stay with the reliable sourcing for these. --Masem (t) 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem, just noticed that you answered some questions on naming conventions. When the name of an institution or a religious charity is recorded in its statute and all other legal documents with an honorific title (ex. The Foundation of Imam Ali (PBUH), I wonder if we keep the honorific title or we remove it? Could you please point me out to the related policy? Thanks in advance.Diderotd (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we have direct policy on that but my gut is that we'd not include that honorific in the article name but mention it in the formal name once. --Masem (t) 13:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful and quick reply. That was my assumption too.Diderotd (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the edits were not needed is wrong in my opinion, and in fact I think that more edits may be needed to that paragraph. The whole paragraph makes it sound as if paying for cards was necessary in order to play competitively. That's not the case at all, and in particular the numbers given in the last segment are about building a complete collection, which has nothing to do with playing competitively (not even pros have a complete collection, nor do they ever feel like they need to). And yet, this paragraph correlates those two different aspirations as if they were one and the same, as if having incomplete collections was only acceptable for casual players. The ultimate example is LanguageHacker, one of Hearthstone's 16 Grandmasters, who until very recently was playing competitively at a very high level completely free to play. I myself am not playing at his level, but I play at a reasonably high level (around 400 Legend usually), I'm completely free to play and I open around 300 packs per expansion, which is more than enough to build all the competitive decks.

This controversy involves a specific tweet by a fan that the Writer & Director of Wonder Woman 1984 Retweeted

The whole controversy involves a specific tweet. The tweet MUST be included Dwilliamphilip83 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, editor Masem, Viacom is now a disambiguation page. So when you link to the company, the way you did at History of video games, please use:

[[Viacom (2005–2019)|Viacom]]

Thank you for your edits and for your support in this! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Removing episodic is incorrect. Polygon refers to "episodic release". Other sources, including the game's official websites, show that the game still will be episodic, they are just going to release all the episodes at once rather than playing a waiting game between episodes. IGN: "unlike every other Life Is Strange game, True Colors will be released in its entirety on September 10 – although it will still be split into 5 chapters". ภץאคгöร 07:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did You Remove My Xbox Series S image From Xbox Series X And Series S Article Nakita Kelley (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NFCC. Non-free images like the Series S you provided cannot be used to illustrate Wikipedia when a free image is reasonably possible to obtain (since the Series S is out and people can photograph it). --Masem (t) 04:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. I came across WP:THQ#Last of the summer wine and while looking at the character pages and main article Last of the Summer Wine, I noticed that there are some images of characters that are being used in the main article about the show as well as in List of Last of the Summer Wine characters. I also noticed that non-free use rationale for File:Trio-collage.jpg seems to be one of the "combo" rationale designed to cover multiple uses that seem to be used quite commonly back in the earlier days of the NFCC. So, I'm wondering whether it might be better to remove the images from the main show article and use them in the individual character articles instead. I'm also wondering whether the rationale for the collage image is OK per NFCC#10c or if it would be better to split it off into a separate rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For that collage one, that definitely is better on the character page, since there's one image already for three key characters already there. --Masem (t) 13:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries if you're not interested, but we're currently having a discussion over whether or not to delete the articles that you helped me to restore the flyer information for. I'm not a terribly experienced user, and I admit that I initially responded to the deletion of these articles poorly, but I figured it might be worth inviting an admin to the discussion. I opted to invite another user that has more experience on the wiki as well, but I don't believe that they're an admin.

Thanks, Pacack (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless we have an explicit word from Activision that they're done with TH we cannot assume they are done with the series, that's WP:CRYSTAL"[4]

I disagree. Series cancellation statements are never formally released, so it is highly doubtful that you would find such for most (if any) of the series listed. This would also make it appear as though we closed all other year ranges after X years because a new entry appeared infeasible, which would be OR. Furthermore, leaving a range on "–present" suggests that there could be a game upcoming. We do not know this, so that is WP:CRYSTAL. I believe that we should use the year ranges as representing the years in which Activision (or any other company) has published/developed games in a series. This would place us comfortably in the field of what is sourceable without any kind of CRYSTAL/OR. Here, "–present" would only be used where know of an upcoming game. Thoughts? IceWelder [✉] 21:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: I'll agree that series cancellations are rarely announced, though it is reasonable that if a series which had had frequent releases lacks an entry for 5-6 years, and there's clear evidence for why the last title or two failed, that the series can be considered cancelled (eg like in the case of Guitar Hero). But we're talking about a series that just had a game last year; there's no way we can presume that Activision is done with the series just because there's no word of another game in the short term, and calling it cancelled now is speculation. I understand the concern about leaving a series appear in development by having "present" at the end (as we know for the case for Call of Duty), and maybe what needs to be done that unless we know that there's a future title coming for certain in any series, that all of them should be using the date of the latest published game (eg 2021 for Crash due to Crash 4); and mark those that have affirmed future games differently, like "in development". That way, you're reflecting the dates of games actually published, and nod to where known future games are expected, but not necessarily labelling any series closed off. --Masem (t) 14:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As in

• Tony Hawk's series (1999–2020)
• Call of Duty series (2003–2020; in development)
• Crash Bandicoot series (2008–2021)

? That would be fine with me, just needs to be consistent. IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Something along those lines. There might be better words like "ongoing". Also, I would consider that CoD still has active 2021 work through Warzone; any major expansions/upgrades should be considered as part of the years inclusive. --Masem (t) 16:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's another tricky aspect. Where do we draw the line for "ongoing work"? Take, for example, the Team Fortress series: Team Fortress 2 receives very minor updates (cosmetics, bug fixes, ...) but that consistently for 14 years. I have a feeling that always going only for the latest release year would make this a tad easier. IceWelder [✉] 16:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for linking that material in your reversion of my edit. It helped me to understand what I had done mistakenly, and I appreciate your patience. That said, I also added, in the same edit, a section on the small, miscellaneous DLC packs such as the one that added Indonesia and the Khmer. Was there anything wrong with that bit? MrSalt05 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! your edit yesterday added <ref name="gameinformer flash death"/> without any reference to accompany it. Do you remember what the source was, and if so, could you go back and add it? Thanks in advance! Sennecaster (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: Oops, I could have sworn I added that ref. It is in there now (it is to this article [5]) --Masem (t) 23:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Glad you remembered! Sennecaster (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Google Stadia, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Stadia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Discord (software), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discord (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, do you disagree that other words I replace "consumer" with are neutral? If not, I think you should consider not reverting edits I make where I do so. Am I making the article worse with such a change in your opinion? Also, I am not going to deny that I am getting a little frustrated about this now. I truly believe that the words I have previously stated as being non-neutral are in fact non-neutral. Perhaps if I was better at wording my position, I would be able to convince you of this. Unfortunately, I lack that skill. Therefore, how are we supposed to resolve this? DesertPipeline (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors, not just me, told you that "consumer" is a neutral and well-established term used in RSes, which we do not hide. You may personally believe their not but you failed to have gained consensus for that point of view and as such you're supposed to let it go, coming back if you have better evidence to justify that stance. --Masem (t) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But do you think I am making articles worse with such a change? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are using language that does not match the sources and inconsistent with the typical language used in these topic areas. --Masem (t) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does nobody go around replacing all other words that could conceivably be replaced with "consumer"? Where is the precedent for "using language consistent with the sources"? What about topic areas where the typical language is too difficult to understand because it is a complex topic – do you propose we do that there, too?

How can I make you see that this word is wrong? Do you appreciate that companies consider you as nothing more than a "consumer", something they use to make money from? You are not a person to them. They don't care. They just want money. Is that what you want to promote?

What if you asked someone what they did today, and they said "I consumed my car". What they really mean, of course, is "I used my car". Would that be a reasonable use of language? If not, why is it acceptable to use it in practically the same context here? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in this case, you ask someone what they did and they say "I consumed a car" (intended to mean "I purchased a car") – wouldn't you be surprised to find that the car still existed, despite the fact they just told you that they used it up, that it no longer exists in a form that can be used in the intended way? What I am trying to communicate here is that the use of language is important. How we say things is important. The words we use are important. There is a reason the word "consume" exists, and there is a reason that it means "to use up". Why do you think its use in this context is being pushed? Why would companies want to change language like that? It is to their benefit if they distort our thinking in this way. That's why they push the usage of the word. There are other words that mean what they want this word to mean, which this word doesn't mean. So why would they push a word that does not mean what they want to mean, and then twist its meaning, unless it was in their interest to do so? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously are getting far too stuck up on one single definition of "consume" that doesn't apply to the standard business case of the word "consumer" that's been in use for numerous years. "To use up" is only one meaning of "consume" and its not the only one. And in the context of any article dealing with business or industry, it is readily clear that "consumer" means the end user of goods and services, not "one that uses up resources". Its how discussion of business and industry has been for decades. And you're trying to introduce a complete awkward way of looking at things that no one else has ever questioned. This is why this is a problem. --Masem (t) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So ask yourself these questions: Why is the standard business-case usage of the word "consumer" this way? What do they stand to gain by doing this? Why would they not use literal words that actually apply to the situation? Is it because things just happened to, for some reason, become this way, or is it because they benefit? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may be clear to you, because you're used to it. But what about people encountering this word for the first time? Not everyone who reads Wikipedia is going to know what it means. Sure, they could look it up, but why require that of them rather than just using a word that actually makes sense in the context without any prior knowledge of the subject? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why "consumer" came to be used this way doesn't matter, only that it is extremely common to be used this way and there's really no need to question the origins of the term. Also, we expect readers to have some competency with the English language - we are not here to be that much of a primer for them - and this use of "consumer" relative to business matters is a term that we readily assume understanding of. At worst, we can link to consumer if there's concern that the reader may get confused between the business meaning and the "use up resources" meaning. You need to recognize how common "consumer" is in the reliable media and it is not a term we're going to get rid of because you think there might be some perceived confusion; the English world has been using this term for decades wthout issue ---Masem (t) 05:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as I asked before, how does a word being common confer neutrality? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, why it came to be used this way does matter. If it came to be used this way to push a point of view, then that makes the word non-neutral. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its well deserved and if often considered as one of the best indie games and has sold 2.8 million according to their siksong blogpost and that was in February 2018 that was two years ago so many more people would have probably would have bought it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Kris 420 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it was a popular game and critically did well, but what we want before adding to the lead examples is a sign that it is recognized as a common example of an indie game. Compared to the others we have listed, it doesn't quite meet that, yet. --Masem (t) 16:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how does Hollow Knight does not meet the qualifications of an Indie Game like the only qualification is to be made by an independent studio and hollow knight was made by Team cheery an independent studio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Kris 420 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely meets the qualities of an indie game. The question is if it is a well-recognized example of an indie game for the lede like the others listed already - titles that are instantly tied to "indie game". There's thousands of indies, and probably a few hundred that are commonly recognized beyond video games, so we're being selective to the ones that best respresent what indie games are. Hollow Knight doesn't quite cut it for that purpose. --Masem (t) 16:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get what you are saying but then how does one say a particular game means indie if it by toal units sold then Hollow Knight sold 2.8 million in February 2019 since its release in 2017 while Shovel Knight which is in the lede sold 2.65 million in September 2019 since its release in 2014 this info is on Wikipedia By the way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Kris 420 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sales are not the only measure of how recognizable a game is, unfortunately, particularly with numbers that close. --Masem (t) 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then how does a game mean indie if its by recognizability than anyone who has played games for a while would know what Hollow Knight is also if the numbers are close than both Hollow Knight would be as recognizable as Shovel Knight if not more than Shovel Knight as it sold more in 2 years than shovel knight which was 5 years old

Sales are not the only way to measure the importance and recognizability. We're looking for games that are synonymous with indie games, not just that are best sellers. --Masem (t) 18:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then how does a game become synonymus with indie games Hello, this is me again you never answered my question how does does a game become synonymous with indie games

Hi Masem. I've been working on cleaning and updating the Vimeo Livestream article with requests similar to those you and I have collaborated on over at Vimeo. An editor helped me clear out some unsourced and non-notable info from the article's Events section, which now seems like it could be merged into the main History section. I posted some proposed text with updates to how Livestream is used and haven't gotten a response. Since you and I have worked together on the Vimeo article, I thought you might be interested in reviewing. If so, you can find my request here. Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks! JS Vimeo — Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to leave this here: You're citing WP:BLPCRIME for edit-warring well-sourced information. Just a reminder, "BLP" stands for Biography of Living Persons. Can you think of any reason why it BLPCRIME might not now appy to Adams? Lahaun (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BDP, BLP applies 100% to the recently deceased, typically for a period of several months. --Masem (t) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem, I'm writing to request your input on Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games (A–F)#Spinoff from above Break - When we are considering "secondary coverage" for the purpose of notability checks, should this be checking for the game as a whole, or only for the Switch version of the game?. As you know, there has already been a proposal to restrict the scope of the Switch list to only "notable" games, which you are in favour of. Simply put, the question is whether "notable games" means the Switch version of the game is notable, or the game as a whole is notable. Taking the former approach will lead us to an inconsistency between games with and without own articles, which I fear may lead to articles being created purely for the purpose of list inclusion, as I explained in more detail in the subsection. I already discussed with ferret and he said we need to get the input of more voices. I have posted the subsection on 12th April but so far got no responses. I would appreciate your input. Thanks! Kidburla (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ColecoVision, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Midway and Bally.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started Talk:StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty#move_of_generic_content_to_StarCraft_II to explain edits such as [6], please use the fine talk page to explain your concerns, because this is non-sensical.

"Legacy of the Void" is equally well described today as an expansion for both SC2 as a whole and WoL, because WoL as such does no longer exist (it's just one f2p game these days). And the other link was an obvious violation of the simplicity principles in WP:NOPIPE. This edit was pure technicality, unrelated to the meta issues of whether SC2 should be described in the SC article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As ferret and I have explained, the whole split and treating SCII as a separate series is wrong, but you are continuing to do massive changes that are against this, which is violating BRD. There is perhaps a valid reason to move "StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty" to "StarCraft II" under COMMONNAME, but that needed to be done under a RM rather than what you're doing. --Masem (t) 15:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating a move of the WoL article - that game was a real-world primary meaning of SC2 for a couple of years, it was an actual product that was sold, people played notable esports tournaments using that particular game, etc. If HotS and LotV are considered topics worthy of their own Wikipedia articles, then it stands to reason that WoL is no less worthy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert you change of image at ITN. There may be a copyright issue with the image and it's probably best we don't have it on the Main Page. I've already reverted one addition and don't want to get into an edit war over this. Once the image has been removed from the template, it should also be removed from CMP. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Done, I didn't notice it had been reverted before but agree that its a possible copyvio issue without the OTRS confirmation. --Masem (t) 21:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from CMP. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shooter game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isometric.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you reverted my edit since it had Mod DB links. If I took out the Mod DB links from the references, would it be okay to put it back? (Asking since they also have other sources) reppop^talk 02:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have to be from reliable sources (WP:VG/S). I know there are other mods besides Blue Shift being made, but to avoid self-promotion , we need reliable 3rd party sources. --Masem (t) 02:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I've made another version with removed references. Would this be okay to add it into the artice?

Uplink and Uplink Redux[edit]

In 2012, mapper Michael "Hezus" Jansen created the mod Black Mesa: Uplink, a remake of Half-Life's demo level, Uplink.^[1][2] Jansen worked on the mod for three years before release, saying "I've recreated something people played 13 years ago, that means it's intertwined with nostalgic feelings."^[3] With the transition from mod to game in 2015, Jansen returned to the idea and started work on recreating it for the Steam version that featured new content and updated graphics called Black Mesa: Uplink Redux.^[4][5] However, in 2019, Jansen halted the production of the mod due to health issues.

Hazard Course[edit]

On December 29, 2015, PSR Digital released Black Mesa: Hazard Course, a remake of Half-Life's tutorial level of the same name.^[6] The mod had been in development from 2012 to 2015 for the original mod version of Black Mesa as Crowbar Collective had not implemented a training level in the game, citing its obsolete use due to the tutorial HUD.^[7] The mod includes an intro tram ride and brief meeting with scientists reminiscent to the PlayStation 2 version of the level.^[8]

In 2016, PSR Digital released an announcement that the mod had become broken due to differences between the mod version and the Steam version of Black Mesa. With fixes through the next years, the team re-released the mod for the Steam version of Black Mesa on December 29, 2020, the 5th anniversary of the mod's release.

Azure Sheep[edit]

In 2018, the HECU Collective announced that they would be remaking the Half-Life 1 mod Azure Sheep, originally released in 2001.^[9] A demo of the mod was made available for download on November 18, 2018, with Part One being released in 2019. In 2021, the mod's next parts were postponed as the HECU Collective focused to work on Black Mesa: Blue Shift.^[10]

Blue Shift[edit]

On February 16, 2021, the HECU Collective announced that they would be taking a break from their mod Black Mesa: Azure Sheep and were now focusing on a remake of Half-Life: Blue Shift.^[11][12] Unlike another remake in progress, Guard Duty by Tripmine Studios, the mod utilizes assets from Black Mesa instead of creating it from scratch and released in chapters.^[13][14] The mod began development after a previous attempt at a Blue Shift remake, Insecurity, was abandoned.^[15] Half of the members working on the mod while the other half worked on Azure Sheep.^[16] On March 16, the first chapter was released.^[17][18]

Thanks. reppop^talk 23:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop: Yes, the sourcing for the most part is much better, and so that proper attribution is there, please add this to the article without changes. That said, I will edit a few things out as there are non-RSes - for example, the stuff on Azure Sheep as that's a non-notable mod for original game and the sourcing is not sufficient. Most everything else has an RS attached so I may be removing dup, non-RS sourcing. --Masem (t) 23:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you. reppop^talk 23:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Connected (upcoming film). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Connected (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like your comment re the 20-year perspective. Half the crap in these articles barely passes the 20 minute test! Guy (help! - typo?) 20:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that adherence to WP:10YT and WP:RECENTISM will cut back on a lot of issues that end-up at AE. However, understanding US media will also help. Take a minute and watch the video. Atsme 💬 📧 14:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the 10/20-year view (in that, we should focus on the facts rather than opinions in the short term, and then consider what opinions there are that come out in the 10-20 years after the fact to eliminate the recentism, more likely coming from academia than press) will help resolve the issues with current media and the use of accountability journalism in its reporting, which does have the problem of mingling opinion among fact. We still of course should not ignore an opinion widely shared among sources in the short term if that is clearly obvious, but the focus on short-term nitpicking leads to cherry picking from mainstream RSes that does get into the problems with how the current press operates today.

But I will say that this NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM issue is not only limited to just alt/far-right issues but becoming a factor across the board. Look at the COVID pages as an example of how badly people document minutae day by day (the amount of PROSELINE) rather than look for trends and larger stories. People want to treat every news event as a new article. The problems of alt/far-right is a symptom of this - a significant one - but the root cause is deeper than that and goes back to understanding the balance of what NOT#NEWS implies between being able to keep articles current and "not a newspaper"; I feel we need to stress the idea of "staying current to information that survives the 10/20 year test" needs to be added. --Masem (t) 15:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment about colorized images - "simple rotation, cropping, etc - are not considered elements of a new work". A few years ago, I whenever I found an infobox image that didn't focus on the subject, I would go to commons and using the tools there crop it, creating a "derivative work". Many of these got deleted when the orig was deleted due to copyright issues and eventually I was chastised for uploading so many copyvio images. I explained I was just inocently cropping so they would display better, but their policy is that that anyone who uploads a "derivative" is responsible for its license and I was just as guilty. I know I can accomplish the same thing by cropping in realtime with CSS everytime the image is displayed, but that's too much trouble. I just moved on to other things. Just mentioning to get your take on this. MB 16:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see on your Commons talk page history, you were taking copyrighted works and cropping them down. That cropping is not a derivative work; that work must keep the original copyright of the image you cropped from, and 1) commons does not accept copyrighted images and 2) you appeared to either be claiming them as your own work or omitting the original copyright. Real-time CSS cropping is not going to change the license, so that's why that's no problem. --Masem (t) 17:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was using the crop tool there. A recent example is this, which shows in the file history it was extracted (cropped) by me but retains all the licensing of the original. Commons admins said this was uploading a derivative work and a copyvio (if the original uncropped was a copyvio): "You are responsible for what you upload. That includes vetting other images you find on Commons before you upload derivative crops." Is this some terminology misunderstanding about what "upload" means - I was cropping on commons with a tool in the sidebar there (that is actually hosted on toolforge). MB 18:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that Commons does expect you to make sure that you aren't cropping a copyrighted image that was uploaded to Commons (because there is no auto-vetting process there) but you'd have to ask them exactly what they were getting it, as I can't see what your past images w/ problems completely to determine the issue. As best I can tell, that Denice K image is exactly how I upload cropped/"mechanical" non-derivative works to Commons and never have a problem though I know the original images are good to the best of my knowledge. --Masem (t) 18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe I'll look this thread up in the future if I ever have a problem again. I'm no expert in searching the web to find where an image on commons came from and if the uploader was telling the truth. Lately, I've only cropped images that have been on commons for at least a couple of years assuming if they were not properly licensed they would have been deleted in that time. MB 20:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rod Fergusson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ken Levine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm when you finally get the proper spelling for LGBT -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 16:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conducting another survey for the Wikiproject Video games Newsletter. If you could leave your thoughts on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Every response will be compiled into a MOS-Esque answer that balances the thoughts of our top contributors. You're one of them! The question is as follows:

What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?

If you would like to respond, please ping me here and write your reply. I'll handle the rest. Thanks in advance, Panini!^🥪 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question, did you use a tool just now to standardize the dates on The World Ends with You, and if so which one was it? I'd love to have it if it exists! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777: This one User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates --Masem (t) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tried to get it working, doesn't seem to work for me for some reason. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I don't know how we're going to do this table going forward now."

Well, let me provide you with a very simple solution!

You see, the title of the table is "Collectible cards breakdown" and core set cards are NOT collectible, they will poof as soon as the next core set rotation comes around, same as, say, Doom in the Tomb cards did. We didn't add "Doom in the Tomb" cards to the table, did we? There's no reason to put Core cards in there either, not to mention that only the new ones should've been added there in the first place to keep the total count accurate.

Any thoughts, or perhaps objections to deleting Core 2021 from the table? 78.28.55.108 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the games apart of the league of legends series, such as legends of runeterra and teamfight tactics, the 'series' in the infobox is league of legends, now i know league of legends is the game on the article but it would be helpful if we could confirm that its apart of the same series when looking at the different games, just for clarity, thankyou if you can help

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit that broke the syntax of this image. -- ferret (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

considering you never gave me a answer on how does a game become synonymous with Indie games also me forgetting about it can you give me a concreate answer to why Hollow Knight shouldn't on the Indie game pageMr Kris 420 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Kris 420 (talk • contribs) 17:29, May 24, 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The issue, as Masem explained already, is not that Hollow Knight is not an indie game, but that Hollow Knight is not a notable enough indie game. If you disagree with this, that's fine: go to the article talk page and start a new section there and try to make your case. Look at the articles for games that do appear, and find sourcing similar to those to prove your claims with. You very well may convince a few people to support its inclusion that way.

And last but not least: Please sign your talk page edits by typing four tildes at the end(e.g.~~~~). This is important for letting people know who said what. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. What do you think about the non-free use in Williamsport Crosscutters#Logos and uniforms? The logos are former logos being used in a gallery format which is generally a type of non-free use not allowed per WP:NFG. The gallery syntax could probably be removed and the logos added in-line so to speak, but there still might be WP:NFC#cite_note-4 issues. Even though there's some commentary on the brand change, it's pretty much unsourced for the most part and more descriptive than contextual. My first thought was to PROD these two files, but I'm trying figure out if there's way to save them. File:Cutters.PNG may also have a NFCC#4 issue since it's unlikely that the source provided is the original source for the logo, but I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Far Cry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Gonzalez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Christina Ricci source calls it Matrix 4, there is absolutely nothing incorrect in calling it The Matrix 4 until th Ery decide to give it its official name. This quibbling about working titles is needless. Rusted AutoParts 18:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, because we had a requested move discussion about it, it shouldn't be moved to any other title until we have a confirmed name, or another RM is done to move it. --Masem (t) 18:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted this edit without explanation. Please provide one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_230&oldid=1027773375

--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you've incorporated my approach into your own edits. Which is fine. But please communicate better. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative platform. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first reversion was a mistaken and I didn't mean to use that approach. I was trying to use the normal undo but keep part of yours. --Masem (t) 23:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. We all make mistakes. But still, better communication. IMHO, *all* changes should be properly commented. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I was about to post a question at BLPN about anti-vax activist tags [[7]] but I thought I would ask your thoughts first. My primary concern with asking my question at BLPN is the appearance that my question might be motivated by my own personal views on the subject. Personally I'm very pro-vax and think many of the people who are anti-vax are ignorant. Still, I have concerns with how the tag is used. My concern is that anti-vax or anti-vax activist[[8]] can be seen as a pejorative. Some people like Jenny_McCarthy are clearly activists. However, what about someone like Charlie_Sheen? His BLP makes it clear he is against vaccines but it doesn't say anything about acting as an activist. What about Marjorie Taylor Greene who doesn't appear to be against vaccines in general but, per her BLP, is concerned about mandates related to the COVID vaccine use. My feeling is this category is a bit like "climate change denier" or "X supremacism/X phobe" categories in that it can have a very negative implications about the person but lacks any sort of nuance or direct tie to a RS. This BLP is tagged [[9]] yet it isn't clear the person is anti-vax at all even thought it appears members of his church were. As I said, I'm concerned that asking if these tags are appropriate/trying to remove them will be seen as supporting anti-vax ideas in general via white washing. I'm also curious about cases where the tag is applied to someone who was anti-vaccine in the late 1800s [[10]]. I just don't like seeing any WP article read as though we are trying to persuade someone that the BLP subject is a bad person or has bad ideas. I would rather articles read as a dry presentation of information. Anyway, I figured asking you would is a good start. Springee (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this falls into the climate change deniers vs skeptics concept. I would agree there is a difference between a person who refuses to be vaccinated, and has stated this, but does not press others on this, and then there's those that go to be activists to try to get people to stay away from vaccinations altogether. Unless they are clearly in the latter - activists against the use of vaccines - I would consider everything else to be very cautious labels for application. --Masem (t) 19:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Masem: I noticed you have extensive experience as an editor and are active on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. I would greatly appreciate your input on my draft for YouTube Pride 2021. You can find the draft at User:Peony1432/sandbox. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for Google. Thank you for your careful consideration.Peony1432 (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peony1432: do you have any issue if I made some copyedits to your draft? I think its an appropriate topic for an article at this point (we'll likely know more after the 25th) but I think I can help clean up some language that looks promotional as well as "future proof" it (eg make it easy to make it past tense after the 25th). --Masem (t) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the correct spelling of the Supreme Court writ is certiorari. I have corrected the misspellings. Safiel (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently attempted to clarify the origins of the term Metroidvania, but my edit was reverted. As I do believe the description I added was valuable to the article and more accurately describes the name's origins, I would like to know what the reasoning is of the reversion. Singlewikiedit (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our reliable sources in the article point to Castlevania: SotN as the principle game that established the genre, and IGA (due to being that game's producer) the primary influencer in this area. While Metroid has an influence, it starts from Symphony of the Night as our sources list out. --Masem (t) 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure which sources you are referring to. Neither of the two areas I edited had citations. Could you please highlight which references you mean?

In addition, my edits also concerned the origins of the name Metroidvania. If we briefly do not focus on what the genre is about or which game or which person was most influential, I do believe that the comment I made is important information of the history of how the name came to be. Sure, the exact person responsible or the first instance of the word is unknown. However, in online games discourse in the early 2000s, the term was used to describe Castlevania games that took after Metroid (as mentioned in source 15 of the article). In current day discourse this term does not exclusively refer to these Castlevania games but instead is a broader genre description (again, see source 15). I believe this part of the name origin is currently lacking in the article. Is it possible for this nuance to be added to the article?

Lastly, I believe the article in its current state is contradictory. The "History" section already states in the first sentence that the original Metroid is generally considered the most influential game in the genre (as pointed out in the first source of the article). Therefore, I find it a bit awkwardly worded that Castlevania SotN and Koji Igarashi are highlighted in the beginning of the article rather than the original Metroid game. And to return to the Gamasutra article (the article's first source), it describes Metroid 1 as the pioneer, Super Metroid as refining the genre, and SotN as expanding the genre. These seem like 3 equally important contributions to the genre. To pick out SotN as "the principle game" and "establisher of the genre" and "primary influencer" like you did in your reply just now seems not representative of what the source describes.

The 7th source of the article (also a Gamasutra article), also does not put this primary focus on SotN. That source instead describes SotN as the "rebirth" of the genre. The first Metroid is described as the primary influence in that article. The 8th source of the Metroidvania wikipedia article describes SotN as being a game that "iterates". Again, this does not imply the game being the principle of the genre as you stated. The 9th source of the article, the Kotaku source, mentions this: "Symphony of the Night made sure that Metroidvania-style games became a part of gaming culture". This quote shows that the genre was already established by SotN's release. The 12th and 15th sources in the article do not make any mention of SotN being the genre's beginnings. I cannot identify any other source within the list of 22 sources in this article that backs the description you gave of SotN and that justifies SotN's being the focus in the article's beginning.

Could you please consider implementing some of the comments I made? Focussing more on the genre's origins being Metroid 1 and Super Metroid, focussing less on Koji Igarashi and SotN in the beginning section and History section, and adding the original use of the term for Castlevania games that resembled Metroid. Singlewikiedit (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that there weren't Metroidvania games before SotN, but that with SotN, that established what the basic formula for those games was to be with IGA getting the credit for that. The term only came after SotN (as Castlevania games continued to use the same format). Hence why the lede states first that the genre is generally based on games that follow Metroid or Castlevania formats, but then specifically calls out SotN as the key defining game. While Super Metroid may be retroactively the first true Metroidvania, the term or genre wasn't really established well by that point. Based on what we have sourced for the name origins, we know the earliest uses were after more Castlevania titles utilized Metroid's formats (eg post SotN) and that's when it came to be a gerne. I can agree that Metroid and Super Metroid should be mentioned, but SotN is the fundamental game here that most everything derives from. --Masem (t) 00:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering my comments. I believe the article gives a more balanced description now.

However, the use of "The genre's defining title" for SotN in the article does not feel completely veracious. I do not see any of the sources making this claim or implication.

I get the impression that that statement is more of a subjective judgement. Please consider this judgement below.

I can imagine that you may neglect my next statement due to a lack of sources or its subjective nature, but as a massive Metroidvania fan that often partakes in online discourse for these games, I truly get an overwhelming impression that Super Metroid is seen as the genre's origins (and thus defining game) online.

As Super Metroid in particular established most of the groundwork that the Castlevania games and later Metroidvania games used and developed (even if Zelda was supposedly an inspiration in some cases), it feels odd to draw the line at SotN (not as the beginning but as the defining game). Especially considering the naming of the genre (putting the title Metroid first in the portmanteau and using the entire Metroid name and not the entire Castlevania name). The fact that the name Metroidvania was the one that stuck and not Castleroid might hint at what may have been the origins and defining features/game of the genre. The term Metroidvania survived because that one was more descriptive and useful to what people were trying to convey than Castleroid. This Metroidvania name puts the emphasis on Metroid. In general use online, I understand that people mostly are using it as a catchy shorthand to refer to Super Metroid's gameplay more often than SotN's.

In your response, you concede that Super Metroid might "retroactively" be the first Metroidvania. Then why not call it the defining Metroidvania in the article?

And if Super Metroid is not the 1 defining game, why is SotN the 1 defining game? If 1 game gets the priority, surely it would be the game that came first?

Metroidvania originally being a term to describe Castlevania games "like Metroid" truly puts the emphasis on Metroid before Castelvania. If you where to ask back then: "what is a metroidvania game" I genuinely believe most people would say "castlevania game like metroid". Then why put the emphasis on the castlevania part of that equation in the article? If SotN and its many sequels never existed and a completely different games series, like Ghouls and Ghosts, decided to follow in Metroid's footsteps I truly believe the genre would not be that different as we know it today. In that hypothetical situation, Metroid would still be the one that formed the basis, so Super Metroid would be the defining game, right? I think the defining game would be the one that was the source of mechanics, the popularisation of those mechanics, and the pioneer of those mechanics. In this reality, the game that fits that is Super Metroid. If SotN came out first then it would deserve being called the defining game, but it didn't.

The term evolved beyond those 2 series to included more "games like Metroid" and more "games like castlevania (but only the castlevanias that were like Metroid)". Surely this evolution of the term defines Metroid as the defining component moreso than Castlevania? This evolution of the term shows that if any game of those 2 series deserved to be called the defining one, it would be Super Metroid?

If my previous reasoning as to why Super Metroid would be more deserved of being "the defining game" did not convince you (if so I would like to know why), please consider this final comment. I understand that Metroidvania became a genre only when non-Metroid and non-Castlevania games came out resembling those series. Imagine if there never were Metroidvania games outside the Metroid and Castlevania games. The term Metroidvania would never be seen as a genre, because its use would only apply to a handful of Metroid or Castlevania games. The existence of non-Metroid and non-Castlevania games caused for the term to become a genre descriptor. The Metroid and Castlevania games collectively were responsible for the name, and new IP in those style caused the name to become a genre, thus the 2 series were collectively responsible for the genre at the very least. Why then is SotN isolated as the defining game? The genre's name consist of 2 components and the major inspiration according to many game enthusiast and developers are these 2 series, so shouldn't the defining games at the very least be both Super Metroid and SotN (in that chronological order)? Singlewikiedit (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singlewikiedit (talk · contribs) Basically you have to have read through the sources to understand that from an historical perspective, the gaming community came to recognize there was a formula around "action-platform games that required gaining powerups to access new sections of the map" once C: SotN was released, even though Super Metroid was out a few years before it. And while both Metroid and Castlevania titles used those similar formulas in future games, it is similar due to game historians recognizing SotN as being the game that solidified the principles the best, and hence why they call it the defining game, and not Super Metroid or Metroid. It is not to say neither of these had a part in the lineage, but simply that going from our reliable sources, they point to SotN as the core defining game after which the term "metroidvania" fell into use and the genre became defined. This is similar to the roguelike genre, in while there were games before Rogue that had similar concepts, the game community used Rogue as having the defining content of the genre to base its name on. Those other games aren't forgotten, but they aren't recognized by RSes as critical to the genre. --Masem (t) 13:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your thought process. As indicated in my previous responses in this talk I have extensively read all sources listed in the article, and I could not find a single instance of SotN being described as the defining game, or core game, or something similar. In the beginning of the second and third posts of mine in this talk I mention this extensively. You have still not provided hard counter evidence, such as passages from these sources. I would still like to see these gaming historian claims you mention. I am not questioning the veracity of the reliable sources. It is just that the sources don't say what you think they say.

Also, I think your historical view is inaccurate. The need to describe games as "action-platform games that required gaining powerups to access new sections of the map" as you described did not start with SotN's release. It started with releases not from the Metroid and Castlevania series, such as Cave Story and Shadow Complex. The term Metroidvania initially did not mean "action-platform games that required gaining powerups to access new sections of the map". It initially just meant Castlevania games very similar to Metroid. So at the time of SotN's release the term Metroidvania was not a genre definition yet. It became a genre much later. So the formula only got recognized much after SotN's release. Thus claiming something like 'SotN's release promted people to come up with a genre name and definition' is not true. That happened later. The only thing that happened at SotN's release was people comparing it to Metroid, and using the term Metroidvania to do so. In fact, this comparison did not even happen until much later actually, when the GBA and DS Castlevanias came out. As you stated yourself in an earlier response here "Based on what we have sourced for the name origins, we know the earliest uses were after more Castlevania titles utilized Metroid's formats (eg post SotN) and that's when it came to be a gerne." So you are contradicting yourself. Nothing happened when SotN released. There was no need to define a formula or a genre yet. Your most recent response contradict what you said earlier. Singlewikiedit (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction, staying with what our sources say. Even if the term "metroidvania" came out far after SotN came out, and only later to speak to the genre, the industry has consistently pointed to SotN as the first game that best encapsulated everything about how the games in the genre should be defined, with IGA given credit for setting those rules. That's not minimizing what Metroid games before SotN had on it, just that they aren't the pinnacle of the genre but serve as key foundational games to lead into it. And our article does not state that the term arose immediate after SotN, only that SotN is the game most attached to the term. We can't use any "personal knowledge" here, and as the article points out, the exact origins of the term are not well defined, only that now today we know what that refers to. --Masem (t) 23:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no source listed in the wiki article that makes the claim that industry-wide SotN is regarded as the best encapsulation about how these games should be defined. You have still refused or avoided to cite any examples. I'd would like to see these claims from these sources. I could not find these claims when I extensively went through them myself, for which I would like to refer you to my second comment posted a while back. If none of the sources make this claim, the claim that SotN is the maim defining core of the genre should be removed from the article. Singlewikiedit (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are present in the article, alongside attribution that IGA laid out most of the defining rules for this. The very first source (a Gamasutra article) even speaks to this. Key is not that SotN is the best example but it the first game that cements all the features of what we would know as Metroidvania's today together. --Masem (t) 13:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sources. They do not claim this. I was asking for sources that do claim this Singlewikiedit (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Looking at the cited source, I see the following:

In retrospect, it's little surprise that [Castlevania: SotN] launched a genre; it was a clear attempt to break away and create a holistically enjoyable game for a wide audience. The result worked too well to remain unique.

From where I sit, saying that the game "launched a genre" is pretty unambiguous. The following two paragraphs make this even more clear:

Though retro game fans can point out any number of similar titles, Igarashi and his team arrived at a functional, repeatable design -- and Symphony of the Night came quickly enough on the heels of the acclaimed Super Metroid that it could become entrenched as a formula.

"I think it wasn't until Symphony of the Night and its sequels melded Super Metroid and Castlevania that the classification narrowed to mean something like, 'Side scrolling action-adventures with a obstacles in a continuous map that you can surmount only after finding the requisite items and backtracking,'" says Tom Happ, whose upcoming Axiom Verge is one of the most promising new titles in the genre.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I just added this article that stresses that the addition of RPG elements in SotN is what established it as the genre-defining game, but by no means makes Super Metroid inconsequential to the genre. It was still important, it just wasn't the most critical title. --Masem (t) 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also (just found this) from WAPost "If you’ve been playing games for a while, you’ve likely heard the term “Metroidvania.” It refers to a genre, games that follow the Metroid template. However the “-vania” suffix was added after Konami released “Castlevania: Symphony of the Night” for PlayStation in 1997. Metroid is the original source of inspiration, but Castlevania expanded upon the formula in ways so significant — including turning its entire world upside down just when you think the game is over — that it continues to inspire developers today." --Masem (t) 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advocate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it? the list is about xbox series x/s games, and versions of the games, not xbox one games? EzeeWiki (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different types of games on that list that include Xbox One titles - 1) games that are Xbox One games that are playable on the Xbox Series X/S due to backward compatibility (and which further may have enhancement patches to make them play better on the X/S) and 2) games that are Xbox One games that also have a distinct Xbox Series X/S release, which are supported through Smart Delivery. The wording prior to your editor reflected the games in the first category, but your editor pushed that into the second category (which is basically already covered by Smart Delivery). --Masem (t) 15:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backward compatible Xbox one games are excluded in that list? that's why my edit is still correct as the edit you made, makes no sense as its clearly stated that Xbox one games that are playable on through backward compatibility are excluded... EzeeWiki (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "EN" label is to distinguish from the Smart Delivery approach on that list (mostly for Electronic Arts games that do not use Smart Delivery); the wording you changed it to lost that distinction. --Masem (t) 15:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe. but in that list, there are no Xbox one games, its only Xbox series x/s, and versions of Xbox series x/s. (no Xbox One) maybe change it to reflect the meaning of my edit in a way that would make more sense to you or I can change it? EzeeWiki (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because It's not the only the performance that changes, It's the version also, no Xbox one games are listed there. EzeeWiki (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to share this disagreement with you, but I'm only following procedures regarding the best for Wikipedia, as such I only want to make things better and more understandable, I hope you can see that I don't mean any harm with my edits. conclusion (Only Xbox series x/s games, no Xbox one games listed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs)

What is trying to be clear is that the EN-labeled games are not simply Xbox One games playable on Xbox Series X/S, but specific patches for Xbox One games as to create an enhanced version (hence the EN label) for the Xbox Series X/S, instead of a separate X/S release. The "enhanced" part is the key word here to distinquish that from simply being an Xbox One game playable via backwards compat on the X/S. --Masem (t) 16:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, you are correct. But the games would still be a X/S version as no Xbox one game is listed there. EzeeWiki (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Linda mccartney with camera photograph.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masem and thank you for commenting on the RfC. I take an agnostic position on the utility of tables to these shows and have only become involved to try to bring some clarity to the issue and hopefully reduce disruption. That said, I noticed this comment: As (at least from the little I've seen of it), Drag Race is not a backstabbing/scheming type show, and simply one that involves challenges and judging... I think a large measure of the disruption is because RuPaul's Drag Race as a franchise is a backstabbing/scheming type show and that the producers encourage this not only on the show but among the fanbase. The scheming is only different in that in Survivor making and braking alliances is an explicit part of "gameplay" while in Drag Race it is part of the "outside gameplay" part of the show. The pieces to camera certainly invoke betrayal as a frequent theme. I don't think this has a direct bearing on the RfC question or on your !vote but I do think it has a direct bearing on the editing of these articles. Thanks again, and stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I agree in that assessment, the little I've seen of RPDR. I don't know of any in the case of that show, but like in The Amazing Race, it is only when these "outside gameplay" elements (contestants interfering with other teams in a manner against the rules) that the pages document the penalty, but the pages don't spend the prose talking exactly what was done or what led up to it, that's beyond the purpose. Survivor is different but then I think editors get a bit too nuanced in following every possible scheming thread. Just that I think looking at the RPDR pages, some of the detail is just a bit too much, but reflects on the larger problem across all competitive reality shows about the level of detail these are trying to cover, rather than a reasonable high level that should be more like a sporting event's box score. --Masem (t) 23:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary here, by 'third party', are you referring to independent sources? I appreciate any clarification. Thanks! —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Yes, like news sources. Not court documents, nor press releases or reports by said groups themselves. SCOTUS cases get lots and lots of supporting briefs/friend of the court submissions, which can be found via the court's documents. But we usually don't comment on those unless we see that the media also comments. eg in the case about B.L. there's some mention about the groups that are listed in the article from SCOTUSblog's coverage (that's an independent source, not tied to the court). --Masem (t) 23:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AAA (video game industry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DayZ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for your additions and edits to the Destiny articles. I've semi-started a series article, which is currently hidden under the redirect (at Destiny (video game series), when you click edit, you'll see what all I've done so far that's been hidden). Haven't edited it since January, so a couple things need updated, but there's also sections that need added as well. If you want to start taking a stab at it, that would be awesome. --JDC808 ♫ 04:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you, Any help would be greatly appreciated. Since the event is now over, I updated the draft for YouTube Pride 2021 using past tense and put in more details and sources. Would you mind taking a look? You can find the draft here: User:Peony1432/sandbox. Thank you Peony1432 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as always, for the work you do keeping the Supreme Court backlog small!

— Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil village has Romanian currency,food,names,locations,accents,dracula how is it wrong? Arkley07 (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hero shooter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battleborn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem, I'm a noob regarding bots on WP.
Concerning my request: Do you think it is possible to gather the information suggested by me, to see how bad of a problem this really is?
I really don't know, and consider a (near-)null result possible. But any other result would point to a big problem with many German language citations.
Please advise.--ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Jam: A New Legacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wacky Races.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dune 2020 movie poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Concerning Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_one_new_thing_to_the_current_SNG_text, could you give some specific examples? I haven't been following the issue, so would like to see before supporting. Brandmeister^talk 21:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: The principle driver when I added that has been threads related to Lugnuts' mass creations at ANI eg if you search the AN archives for "lugnuts mass" you will see several threads in the last few months - a few are [11] [12] [13] -- I should be clear that I don't see any sign that any action was taken against Lugnuts as there was a general feeling that they were doing more than just a mail merge to create the stubs, though arguments about better approaches were hatched out. But from those (and others), it is clear that the community would have a problem with mass stubs created by mail-merging a database without significant additional edits, which is what some SNGs could be inferred to support. --Masem (t) 21:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. I'm asking about this because of your familiarity with articles about videogames and your experience with non-free content. FWIW, I get that this might not be a videogame per se, but figure it's similar enough that you might be able to help sort it out.

First question has to do with the article's title and MOS:AMP. I tried Googling this title and got some hits, but am unable to determine whether this is the official title of the game itself or whether it is just how the game has been "unofficially" referred to over the years. Some sites use a "slash" or "and" instead an ampersand, but some also list the title as beginning with "Call of Cthulhu: (...)". Is there a way to figure out whether the current title of the article is the "official" title of the game because that would clarify whether an ampersand should be being used?

The second question has to do with the infobox image File:GW Combined VS&SS-cover.jpg. This image seems to be a user-generated collage of File:Cover of The Vanishing Conjurer.png and File:Cover of The Statue of the Sorcerer.png. The two individual files were being used as such until they were combined together for use by an editor who added an infobox to the article; so, they're now orphaned non-free files which will end up being deleted per WP:F5. They were actually being displayed on the new combined version's file page, but that was flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation; so, I converted the syntax to a link. Is this type of user-generated collage going to be OK? I'm also unable to determine as to whether these were released as a "box set" which might have it's own cover art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the game modules to know how to better find the name. The better example that I can point to is the various Pokemon games which are always released in pairs, so the title typically does not include the "and" in the italics portion, see Pokémon Red and Blue. In terms of the image, under the assumption that as long as these two are commonly paired up and discussed in sources as generally one topic, then it is reasonably to use a user montage to show both covers as part of the infobox, NFCI#1 part, but both image sources should be explained, and that would count as two images overall if NFCC#3 was in play. See the Pokemon articles for that case again. --Masem (t) 13:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I started a discussion at Talk:The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer#Official title to see if the title can be clarified; feel free to comment there as necessary. As for the image, I get what you're saying; however, it appears that the montage was just created by someone who downloaded the two individual files from Wikipedia, combined them into a montage and then reuploaded them as a single file. The only information, therefore, to be found about the individual images is what the original uploader provided when uploading each of the two individual files. Basically, the source given for each is "My own copy" and most of the images of the same covers available online probably are similar scans of someone's personal copy; so, while it can be assumed that the publisher is the original copyright holder, I'm not sure a clean copy from the publisher can be found. Is there something about the non-free use rationale for the montage that is, in your opinion, lacking or that needs to be fixed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no opinion on the article title, but as far as the images, I believe that User:Guinness323 added the two original images, and User:Sciencefish set up the images the way they currently are in the article. BOZ (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I think happened as well. If the article is about two separate books which are part of a set, then either the cover art used for the set or an individual cover for each is probably OK per WP:NFCC. On the other hand, if the article is about a single book with two parts, then really only the front cover is needed in my opinion, and the non-free use of the “back cover” would be hard to justify. The current article title seems to imply that this is one book and not two separate books. Anyway, this is what I’ve pointed out on the article’s talk page so maybe it’s best to further discuss things there. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just pointed out on the Talk page of the article, these are two separate adventures that are printed back to back and upside down from each other, so both covers are the front cover of the relevant adventure. Both titles appear on each cover as A & B and B & A. Guinness323 (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a tête-bêche format. I combined the images as I found no way to display two images in side by side in this particular infobox. Any advice on how to do this would be appreciated. Sciencefish (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I want to have an article written about a small game development studio called Free Range Games. They're developers of one of my favorite mobile games Spelldrifter. I did some digging and apparently it's run by old Shaba Games devs which was owned by Activision. They developed Spiderman Web of Shadows. After Shaba went under in '09 they started up Free Range as a Facebook games.

They had a fairly successful kickstarter for something called Labyrinth but it fell through I guess at some point. Labyrinth became spelldrifter and they released that on Apple arcade and recently epic games store.

The exciting thing is though, they're assisting Striking Distance Studios with developing the upcoming Callisto Protocol. They also helped develop Oddworld Soulstorm. I'd say they're def worth at least an article. Thanks! Antonsvetlov (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around and while their past games may be notable, I can't find any signs of notability of the developers themselves, and we have strict requirements for having standalone articles about companies (see WP:NORG). So it is not likely possible to have an article for them at this time. --Masem (t) 16:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Masem! Antonsvetlov (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Activision Blizzard

added a link pointing to Axios

Ubisoft

added a link pointing to Axios

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got the idea from Microconsles and Retro Consles pages. Plus List of dedicated video game consoles contains same flags. Sorry I didn't know MOSFLAG and Government ties. Doremon764 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think this is a big deal. Everyone calls "dissenting opinions" "dissents." Including us. The article itself refers to Roberts' opinion as a "dissent" in the infobox (and, yes, the infobox is really referring to an opinion when it uses the term "dissent," as you can see by checking the infobox in a case that had multiple "dissenting opinions," like Roe v. Wade, where the infobox includes two separate "dissent" lines, one for each of the "dissenting opinions" issued by White and Rehnquist). The source cited in the sentence I edited, an article from The Washington Post, refers to Roberts' opinion three times as a "dissent" and uses the term "dissenting opinion" . . . zero times. There was exactly nothing wrong with my changing the term "dissenting opinion" to "dissent," but you reverted my entire edit which had also improved the clumsy and awkward phrasing of the previous sentence. Even if you disagree about the term "dissent," maybe next time you can use a scalpel to fix what you disagree with instead of reverting everything. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you split the article yesterday. I'd like to commend you for the effort you've shown towards documenting this situation, it's impressive how that article was written almost entirely by you. You told me a few days ago you'd make an assessment this week, but what made you decide to do it in the end?

On a side note, I noticed a few days ago the law firm they hired, WilmerHale, has a very strange article. For example, it contains sentences such as "WilmerHale is one of the most competitive law firms for incoming associates, who typically come from top-ranked law schools, graduate at or near the top of their class, and serve on law review or other journals" and until recently there weren't even any mentions of their anti-union activity. Me and another IP editor tried fixing it up somewhat but our edits were getting reverted by equally suspicious users. I was debating whether to add a COI notice but I'm unsure if there's enough evidence for that. Maybe protecting the article or setting it into pending changes is in order? 78.152.233.71 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a few more articles that had come in over the weekend (This was before Brack's departure news today), and compared the size of the section with the Blitzchung controversy and it was about the same size, so even if the lawsuit silently disappeared , we had enough to cover it.

I will look at the WilmerHale article later. They were noted to be part of the Amazon union side, but this is a subjective measure so I would have to check that. --Masem (t) 14:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation on RSN is much appreciated!155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your work at California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard is spectacular! Apologies for any edit conflicts I may have caused while you were working on it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: no real conflicts I found, but I absolutely appreciate the copyediting on that. --Masem (t) 01:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suspect you of editing with bias, however your recent edit of GameMaker seems to have a bias (possibly unintentional) towards the new model, so I'd like clear things up.

Thanks,

Avtronboy (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is Masem's edit biased? It's a straight statement of "It was this, now it's this." There's no praise words or criticism one way or the other. -- ferret (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero ties to any video game company, much less GamerMaker, YoYo Games, or Opera. This was as Ferret says, a neutral wording of a price structure change that was announced and reported in third-party RSes --Masem (t) 16:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments here. You're more patient and eloquent than I am...hoping your words of wisdom take root. Marquardtika (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. That editor Marquardtika falsely claims that the investigation on the fraud by CNN´s Chloe Melas against Morgan Freeman "didn't get much traction in mainstream media" https://web.archive.org/web/20210812055202/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chloe_Melas when, in fact, at https://web.archive.org/web/20210812114145/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard there are quoted 10 diferent outlets from 5 countries (Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Dominican Republic, Peru), that published about it, and that are just part of all that did it.

By any honest standards that it was a journalistic success, showing the "former journalist" are clearly biased and need to rely on lies. I pointed that because of being a blatant one. So say somebody is lying when in fact does it is a"personal attack?"

Of course, I don´t ignore you all are searching for any excuse to silence me.LOL.

Any comment on ~Oshwah~ erasing the reference to CNN retribution? I would call that an attemp of censorship.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Chloe Melas. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Specifically the last paragraph of this diff is a personal attack against an editor. You were warned above Nil Einne on August 9 about personal attacks. Masem (t) 13:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

The core issue is that all those sources simply mention the Terada opinion piece, but do not provide any corroboration for it. As that piece is a BLPSPS, just being mentioned in other sources doesn't make the information reliable or appropriate to include, particularly as it is a hostile claim towards Melas that doesn't have any corroborating details from others. BLP is very strict about inclusion of such material, and what's been given in those sources simply isn't enough of a threshold for appropriate inclusion of that one opinion.

And the reason I warned you is that you are attacking editors by trying to discredit them, and not the logic they are presenting about why this material was removed or not included. No one has attacked you in that way, outside of the concerns of the possible COI with the indicated blog piece (which we have to raise and consider). No one has tried discrediting you, only the arguments you have presented for inclusion. --Masem (t) 17:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you considerations in the SK post-close, where I certainly will not post again. You say "deliberate omission", and that is already a biased description (is my biased description), because the article history shows that it wasn't "omitted" all the time, but removed by the editors who improved it to higher quality. English isn't my first language but I doubt that "omit" is quite the right word for removing the work of others without any discussion, without even a hint in the edit summary. While Floq suggested to through a dice, I'd recommend another simple method, not wasting the time of editors in another RfC: count all names in all historic discussions, and see if there's a trend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: in the long term view, yes, there was a box, it was removed, and its been that way since. But from the practical state of discussion at this point in time give that there's been an arbcom case on this and numerous discussions on the talk page, as well, as you point out, that the article has been made an FA, is that at this stage do we include an infobox, or do we exclude/omit it, with all other prior discussions being considered part of the status quo of where we are now and thus looking for new reasons to include or exclude/omit. I appreciate that historically it was removed (not omitted from day one), but its easier to frame where we should be starting to avoid the historical factors and seek why today we should include or exclude. --Masem (t) 17:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, I'll not participate. I know everything about the arbcom case, having been a party, and restricted, and taken to AE for having asked the question if the new principal editors decide. I know nothing about the second arbcom case (which often gets overlooked) because I left the topic area in 2015, adding infobox to articles I write or improve (I mean: if the new principal editors decide that must be valid also for those who want to add, no?), and otherwise just observing, and sometimes find hard to believe what I see happening in the 21st century ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem, I plan on nominating the Wii for a rerun after due to its significant reworking and over a decade of new content we can use. You're the top contributor (by a long shot, especially because I assume Lightlowemon retired), so I'm telling you in advance because you are entitled to be involved in writing a blurb n' such if you're interested. Panini!^🥪 11:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I wrote up a blurb at User:Panini!/sandbox6. Feel free to make changes or suggestions as needed. Panini!^🥪 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Diablo 2 resurrected logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Eyesnore 14:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I completely understand your logic for reverting the "good faith edits". I was wondering why the Apollo Legend stuff got deleted? If they are worth adding, where would the appropriate spot to put it? I assume just start a new paragraph under the Twin Galaxies part. I'm so new to this, so I appreciate your patience!! Thank you so much for your time and help!!! MicahLuv (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do mention the start of the suit related to Apollo in the existing article (as well as to Young), however, an issue is that the possible countersuit or the resolution is never discussed in BLP-quality RSes that I can see; the sources you used are not recognized here has reliable for that type of info. And doing a search on this, I'm not finding any great sourcing to discuss any formal resolution either prior to Apollo's death, as any attention related to Mitchell has been on the case to TG and Guinness. It might be worth discussing what we can us to expand on the talk page because we ought to document the closure of court cases that are documented in RSes for being started. --Masem (t) 12:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are being WP:POINTy, The 'point is' that we should only include tidbits in the header that are noteworthy or news-worthy. The critical praise/lack of praise for this is NOT noteworthy. For example, "Dark Knight" was notable for it's praise, where "Last Jedi" was notable for being panned, etc. (e.g.) What is "note/newsworthy about this" is the protest by the filmmakers and actors over the streaming). Wikipedia isn't the place for PR for films, and the critical consensus on this isn't clear yet.

Aggregators like RT and MC are NOT authoratative, per past discussions and debates by seasoned editors. They do not indicate if a movie is a cultural phenom or even a bad movie. Look at "Pulp Fiction", which was a one movie revolution, or even "Star Wars". RT wouldn't be able to gauge that impact. Only time and history can tell and this movie is simply not blowing away the audiences like "The Dark Knight" did years ago, or films like it. This is WHY Wikipedia: OR was the line drawn in the sand, warning us against "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Please refreshen yourself on the subject.2601:280:3:279D:5D0E:9E5:AAFA:70AB (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I compromised with you. Please discuss at talk to avoid an edit war.2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your group of editors have shown an intent to disrupt this article. You should not be touching it at all. --Masem (t) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. And none of that justifies trying to engage in a blatant WP:OR violation AND WP:Censor. The compromise I proposed says everything you want it to say, sans spin and censorship that falsely gives the appearance of “critical acclaim” for which this film doesn’t have ‘yet’ UNTIL it has actually been released for audiences everywhere. It’s played at exactly only ONE festival for the sample of critics there. RT and MC already sufficiently cover the points you are trying to make. 2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed twice now on the talk page, the statements "generally positive reviews" and "divided reviews" are not contradictory - that speaks to a binomial distribution of review scores which you need both statements to capture properly. There's no OR because we're using RT for "generally positive reviews" and the various articls like from the Independent to talk about the divided reviews. But its important that the film has "generally positive reviews" first and foremost to show which side of the scale it fell on. If the divided scores split the reviews equally across both sides, we'd have called it "mixed reviews" (using RT or MC's language) to show that it fell in that lukewarm area. This is standard writing for films, and you need to stop pushing the POV that editors here are fanboys trying to promote the film above what it should be. This is how we write nearly all film reception sections, period. --Masem (t) 17:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic has already been quoted in the section as saying “generally positive”. It is misleading and redundant to preface the beginning of the section, since it implies widespread critical acclaim for which the press disagrees, not only with you but amongst themselves! Wikipedia demand may we go with verifiable sources, and that we let the sources speak for themselves. We don’t let editors impose their own analysis. I’m on the side of the sources, you are on the side of your “original” analysis. Hence, WP:OR.2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

btw, maybe you missed it but I included a sentence saying “many positive reviews” and did NOT even mention the “decidedly negative reviews” it received. Normally I find that kind of compromise to be ridiculous but I allowed it because it’s harmless enough and get across your point without censoring the sources. Learn to quit while you are ahead.2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are purposely pushing that the film received more negative reviews than it actually did. This is why for every single film, we start with where the bulk of reviews generally fell , and if there are significant outliers (as there are with Dune) that they exist and why they exist. The film so far has generally positive reviews - that's a fact and to not state that upfront is a POV issue. But failing to state the negative divided reviews would also be a failure of POV, and hence why they are include, and that we can call them "divided" based on the RSes rather than interpreting that for ourselves. That positive is a neutral statement of the reception of the film as done for every other film on WP. You are pushing a very nuanced stance of the reviews that don't match with the reality that we use for all other films on WP. --Masem (t) 17:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I don’t even use the word “negative”. Unlike you, pushing the phrase “generally positive”. I’m simply quoting the articles directly, which point out that this film “divided critics” in the first screening AND I even included that, yes, this has received “MANY positive reviews”. But you want to make it look like it has received wide critical acclaim, or at least, want this to sound like a settled matter. The film hasn’t even opened yet. Look at Spider-Man 3, a film that seemingly opened to a positive critical response but was actually dividing critics at the time. I understand what you are saying, you are just wrong. 2601:280:8:BF30:9DCF:4C51:C000:5001 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with "divided critics" buries the fact that film has generally positive reviews (which is standard language and not anything special, nor a statement implying wide critical acclaim) and makes the film appear to have a more negative reception. That's NPOV right there. And yes, it might change (but I've explained based on who has already reviewed it, it likely won't change that much) and we can update when it gets a wider release. --Masem (t) 17:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying - 2601:192:8701:B4C0:0:0:0:D14A (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epic Games v. Apple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Sweeney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your explanation on a page where I wish not to post to again: what you describe as "omit one" would be more precisely described as "remove one that was there for years", and that is the conflict I see: that some editors claim their work improving an article is so much better than what others contributed before, that their preference has to be observed, which they like to call "consensus". I worked on Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I'm just trying to point out that there's no policy driver behind including one, nor any policy driver that makes the consensus to omit it wrong as was claimed. This is 100% a decision that relies on editor consensus. --Masem (t) 14:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was not clear. Someone creating a new article can decide "omit" or "include". Someone removing (without an edit summary) what was there for years is not "omitting". You please give me a proper word in order to avoid having to say "secretly stealing against consensus". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I edited the Xbox Series X/S page, because I thought I was not clear with my edits so my apologies, but now I changed it to make sure its Xbox Series X/S versions and not just playing Xbox one versions of games, thankyou! StarStorm10 (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say this instead - Microsoft offers a distribution framework known as "Smart Delivery" that will automatically download Xbox Series X/S versions of backwards compatible games for the console when available StarStorm10 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, that Smart Delivery is aimed at the Xbox One/Xbox Series X/S cross-generation games, and not so much the backwards compatability titles (eg Xbox 360/OG titles, and there's a separate aspect that is not Smart Delivery that helps those. I know what you're trying to explain but introducing backwards compatibility complicates matters, the focus should be that MS is using Smart Delivery to help transition between Xbox One and Xbox Series X/S to make it easy to update. --Masem (t) 02:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your absolutely right, Wikipedia means a lot to me and I just want to somehow help with the site, thankyou! StarStorm10 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic, but on xbox.com under 'achievements' its listing my Xbox Series X/S achievements as Xbox One? is this normal? - sorry if you dont know but i thought i would ask, thankyou... StarStorm10 (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, on the Ann Coulter page there is a discussion related to how to present Intelligent Design. Currently ID exists as a single sentence in the body of the article. A point of dispute is if the mention of "intelligent design" should be accompanied by a statement that it's pseudoscience/etc. No one is questioning that ID is pseudoscience (or similar). The question is if we need to force that into the article. One editor posted the question at FTN [14]. Is that really the correct place for the question since this seems to be a editorial style question rather than a question if something is/isn't fringe. In a similar vein, there is the case here [15] where a controversial person is mentioned and labeled with something that is part of their primary BLP. Again, the claim is arguably supportable but is it good prose to include it? Looking for a push in the direction of the best location to ask for input. Thanks Springee (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with what this comment implies about other editors [16]. Springee (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SDDATES encourages dates. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get that within 40 characters; the current one is 33, and adding dates would put it over 40; there's no essential disambiguation needed with the dates here. --Masem (t) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An SD does not have to be under 40. That is a target, but a few over is fine also. MB 18:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Overwatch loot box.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw my recent comments at WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases talk page section about the navboxes raised earlier this year. I'd like to apologize for a horribly and inexcusably belated response. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem quite content with contributing to Video game articles, I thought I would place a question here for you, most if not all Xbox Series X/S on the list of Wikipedia, are 'Optimized' if you go to Xbox website it lists all Optimized games, and you'll see the games listed there, should we implement a change on Wikipedia about the games listed? what do you think? StarStorm10 (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Ayden75 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Hello, I can show you all official and public justice decision, and all original sources of journalistic investigation (Canard PC, Mediapart and Le Monde). No one is speaking about what you wrote. But many parts of what you wrote has ever been identified like fake news by french journalist deontology concil. Some communication enterprise have ever been identified by spreading that kind of fake news. So please stop infinite undo.[reply]

There are several problems with the version you are bringing from the fr.wiki. One is that it is poorly translated but that's a minor issue.

It is factually missing several key details and approaches to how en.wiki writes per WP:NPOV. First off, we are giving a lot of weight to Le Monde, Mediapart and Canard PC in their explanation, and only give a bit of retort from Quantic Dream (two statements) in rebuttal. We do not use any direct material from Quantic Dream, instead repeating what third-party sources use, but as per en.wiki's NPOV, we need to include these types of statements.

Second, the fr.wiki version is completely missing that one of the employee lawsuits was overturned earlier this year. It is also missing that the suit against Le Monde was upheld even while the Mediapart one was rejected. None of that is "fake news", that's well documented in multiple RSes.

The one thing that is missing that I have to check sources a bit more carefully is that I think we have two different employee lawsuits that were in the works, the one that was overturned and one that may not have been. But the fr.wiki version is not clear on this either so I have to research this some more.

But this is all well-backed information that uses the French press as the starting point, not Quantic Dream's POV (outside of two statements related to their defense). --Masem (t) 17:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we should not be using Mediapart's article to report that Mediapart won its case against QD, for the same reason we should not use Quantic Dream's direct statements to support its statements. We can report through what third-parties have said they said (which have identified Mediapart won), obviously. --Masem (t) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Ayden75 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC) --Ayden75 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Many press sources you use is only based on Union and Quantic Dream communication. So many people do the error. Try to contact Jason Schreier or Ethan Gach working with french journalists on it since many years. That kind of informations aren't encyclopedic informations. Read the french sources and try to stick this version because it's the only orignal and sourced by investigation, Le Monde Canard PC and Mediapart, only these newspaper investigate on the Quantic Dream case.[reply]

The overturned comes from a Quantic Dream viral communication. They used it to create confusion, the guy wins during 1st instance and loose on the second one, that's right. But none of the orignal investigation journalists spoke about that, interesting no ? FYI there is 4 IT guys and one HR employe who sued the company and 3 of them win for now. But no pressnews speak about that too, so be patient, for sure some real good french medias will relay it officially in the next few days/weeks, based on original justice sources. They are waiting the last difamation judgment to clarify everything.

About Le Monde wins against Quantic Dream but lose against head office because of anonymous testimony, it's right ! But Le Monde or Quantic Dream don't explain it officialy. Press news base information on an unofficial communication of Quantic Dream, again to generate confusion. Unions denounce it and specify what they know. But once again, these are not encyclopedic information.

Information and communication are weapons, Quantic Dream is at war to protect his image. It's not encyclopedic to relay non original sources.

--Ayden75 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC) About Mediapart last blog/article it's different, it's encyclopedic, because it's a resume of what Judges said during the audience. In France you can't relay fake words and attribute it to a judge. And they win against Quantic Dream, they open blog because of many fake news coming from unofficial Quantic Dream communication.[reply]

That's not how reliable sources work here. We assume they are reporting their information independently and do not assume influence of any group. The word about the appeal appears to be based on what the court actually said (Eurogamer points to the actual decision) so there's no way this can be considered fake news.

Now I agree there's a few pieces missing but we are not allowed to use court documents directly, particularly around biographies of living persons. And I think that there's confusion itself in the media between the separate cases becuase I can see likely two separate cases, and I'm trying to untangle those. But we're still bound by what third-party reliable sources have said, and if they are missing the HR person's lawsuit (the one I think is not reported) we can't talk about it. But your claim this is too much on QD's information is simply false or misguided. This is how en.wiki uses reliable sources and if you keep reverting, you will be blocked here. It doesn't matter what happens in France, this is how en.wiki works. --Masem (t) 18:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Ayden75 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC) I can show this discussion to union and differents newspaper to explain how quantic Dream use guys on wikipedia to do confusion. Quantic Dream do it in france with Wikipedia and other newspaper over the world. This is not encyclopedic information, this is only comunication to hide the trust and do confusion.[reply]

--Ayden75 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC) I try to explain taht information into this wiki is false or not encyclopedic, because not based on the original and only investiongations in france. Only 3 media works on that case Mediapart, Le Monde and Canard PC, and they win in justice agains Quantic Dream. Masem is using sources from internet newspaper, based on union and company communications, this is not encyclopedic sources. We can't put in the "truth of a head office company" because he said it, we have to only post verified informations. Because tomorrow we can speak about flat earth, i'm pretty sure to find a newspaper defending that stupid and false idea.[reply]

--Ayden75 (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC) And to be clear, i'm totally informed of the complet justice procedures, i know every details. What you use as sources don't relay the truth, here is the truth:[reply]

1st intance tribunal (not professional judges) 4 guys of IT : 2 of them lose january 2018 one of them appeal in 2020 and wins in front of the Court (professional judges), 1 wins jully 2018 but lose in front of Court Appeal in april 2021 (professional judges), 1 goes to "decide instance" (french name "départage") december 2017 because tribunal don't know what to do, he wins in november 2019 in front of a judge, this guy ask for appeal and date fixed in 2022.

About HR employee, she wins 1st instance in june 2018, she passed in front of Court appeal in june 2021 and now she is waiting the decision.

--Ayden75 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC) If you can find sources that's spoke about truth and reality, share with me, because i'm very interesting to tell you what's wrong or not. If you want to correct my french translation, it could be very nice, you can add elements of course. But please stop to spread some fake news. Or be patient, i can ensure you that severals medias will cover very soon and precisely all what i said. i worked so much time on that subject with victims and justice decisions.[reply]

On Wikipedia, sources like GamesIndustry.biz, Eurogamer, Polygon, etc are considered reliable sources as they have a history of being correct and accurate. Your claim that QD is manipulating these sources and Wikipedia by extension is extremely hard to believe and would need evidence for this. Their coverage of QD's situation related to the Mediapart/Le Monda/CanardPC reports is very much weighted against QD so it would be hard to believe that those sources are being influenced by QD. Yes, they do at times include statements from QD's press releases about the results, but that is standard media reporting - they also include statements from the newspapers as well as the French labor union and others involved. That's good journalism, not shoddy. We want to use third-party sources - and on en.wiki, ideally those in English that are translating from French (so Eurogamer is good here) that help summarize the key points of what's happening in the courts, and avoid using court documents directly, as well as the documents from the parties directly involved as well when talking about their cases (which include Le Monde etc, even if French law regarding the press requires a clear avoidance of conflict of interest).

I have at least confirmed in a version that there were four cases in existence from the IT workers, two dismissed, one that got about a 7000 Euro fine, and the one that was ultimately reversed. I cannot find any mention of one related to an HR employee but again, if no reliable sources talk about it (that includes french newspapers), then on en.wiki we cannot include that. We cannot use court documents as a first source for this information under en.wiki's WP:BLP policy. We have to wait until third-party sources document them appropriately. So yes, if media sources will come out to document that we will include them, but it is wrong to be challenging en.wiki's accepted set of reliable sources without any evidence that they're clearly working for Quantic Dream (which I'm highly confident they are not).

I've tried to incorporate some of the extra articles and details that were in the fr.wiki version and since added more, but again, the picture based on the fr.wiki version is basically wrong in some areas and not neutral for en.wiki's NPOV policy. Basically, there's a major difference of how we are to write articles on en.wiki compared to what may be done on fr.wiki which you have to recognize. --Masem (t) 18:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Ayden75 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Hello, I do not disagree with the content of the articles, but these articles are about communications from the company. The company has already been caught for generating redactions on its pages. Consequently, it is important to only consider articles which mention verified statements such as those of judges, victims, witnesses. To put forward in Wikipedia arguments of defense of Quantic Dream represents a risk of harassment for the victims who already suffer from these fake news which taint court decisions however very precise and perfectly justified. Masem seems to be determined to continue to spread the word of the company through articles which nevertheless address many other elements, he focuses on elements favorable to the company, that is to say the elements of language that they have widely disseminated. in press release.[reply]

And of course i don't understand your choice of some statment of Quantic and not some other from french journalist investigation. For example that part is wrong : That July, Quantic Dream lost one court case against one of the employees who left due to the faked photo scandal,[40] who saught €114,000 in damages and have their resignation be considered wrongful termination under the French employment law of prise d'acte , it was in november 2019 during an audience of "départage" (in french), and the guy don't ask for 114 000 he ask for legal indemnity only calculated by judges and lawyers, inside justice decision we can read : - Indemnité pour licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse  : 86 112 € - Indemnité de licenciement conventionnelle : 5 621,20 € - Indemnité compensatrice de préavis : 14 352 € - Indemnité compensatrice de congés payés sur préavis : 1 435,20 € - Manquement à l'obligation de santé sécurité : 5 000 € - Article 700 du Code de Procédure Civile : 2 000 € Soit un Total de : 114 520,40 € It's fully explain here : https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/291119/quantic-dream-condamne-pour-ses-photomontages-douteux?onglet=full Appeal of this guy wil be in may 2022 like said Union Solidaire Informatique Jeux Vidéo

This part is wrong too : In April 2021, the Court of Appeal of Paris reversed the ruling against Quantic Dream over the wrongful termination, asserting the employee had been complicit in the situation and cleared Quantic Dream of any wrongdoing.[48] This appeal is about an other guy of IT who wins in 2018, not the one of 2019, or physicalreason is that justice in France is very long in France november 2019- april 2021 for an appeal in France it's too short.

This part is wrong too : "In April 2021, the Court of Appeal of Paris reversed the ruling against Quantic Dream over the wrongful termination, asserting the employee had been complicit in the situation and cleared Quantic Dream of any wrongdoing.[48]" Very easy to explain why it's wrong, 2020 Court Appeal and 2019 audience "de départage", Quantic Dream has ever been condemned twice for 2 different guy because of breach of the obligation of security. The reverse of ruling is only because of the motivation of resignation/dismissal, he has done a unilateral resignation so he has to explain precisely the danger he risk to stay into the company, he fail on that point in front of the Court Appeal. He just appeared on 1 photomontage he has found... the 600 others photmontages haven't been join to the case. So he has to refund money accorded from the first audience and paid for 2 months of salaries he has to do if he resigns work contract. Justice decisions are publics !

Quantic Dream spread informations to newspaper with confusion details, you have 4 cases but they never precisely explain all, just speak about money, try to explain guys have try to take money and what Quantic Dream win. They never explain that, for now, they finally lost 3 cases on 5. The wrong part is that employee lose more money to sue them because of their dismissal decision and layers invoice.

To conclude about www.gamesindustry.biz, and this part of this article : "https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-06-22-quantic-dream-and-union-at-odds-over-grotesque-trial". De Fondaumière asked: "I'm not under oath, so, I can lie?" However, our sources suggested that was a misinterpretation on the union's end. It's pure lie, they don't have independant sources at the audience, the only peoples present were journalists, victims, union peoples, and Quantic Dream side. We spoke together and no one, except union, has accepted to answer Marie Dealessandri, so she should simply precise that their sources are Quantic Dream employee.

--Ayden75 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Here is a full complete justice chronology detailed and in english : https://solidairesinformatique.org/2021/04/08/about-quantic-dream/ You can find so many informations to confirm what i try to explain to you : https://solidairesinformatique.org/2021/04/20/about-quantic-dream-and-its-deceitful-statement/ On the next fews days or weeks, you will have many french newspaper speaking about that, everyone is waiting the final diffamation written judgement.[reply]

So if you don't want my version, ok, but try to think about victims who loose money and time, have been harassed for many years, they don't want to see fake news about how they try to falsy get money. Even if they win, fake news make them loose. It's hawfull to spread that kind of informations, just try to stick of truth please.

Ayden75 (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC) You should read this source to complete your resume : https://twitter.com/SolInfoJeuVideo/status/1448191765102710788?s=20[reply]

though I think the primary source I cited would be better than deadline. Hyperwave11 (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed that ref into the body so that it could be used still. --Masem (t) 13:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperwave11: meant to ping you above to know that I reused that source. --Masem (t) 13:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Was wondering if you could help me create this page.Controversial relations between video game developers and publishers I would ask IceWelder but he said he's busy right now. The writing part is the most difficult thing here. Hence I'm asking for your help.

• https://metro.co.uk/2016/05/25/bethesda-may-be-planning-prey-2-reveal-at-e3-5903789/
• https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/05/what-went-wrong-with-human-heads-prey-2
• https://kotaku.com/bankrupted-studio-says-square-enix-demanded-code-by-fax-5806511
• https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-01-marvelous-sued-for-attempting-hostile-takeover
• https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/170779/Report_Korean_govt_to_investigate_Nexons_takeover_of_Taiwanese_firm.php
• https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-06-03/kerbal-space-program-2-release-disrupted-by-corporate-strife
• https://kotaku.com/sources-despite-huge-sales-borderlands-3-developers-a-1842617645
• https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-12-08-vivendi-stake-in-ubisoft-passes-25-percent-increasing-takeover-threat
• https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-10-21-zenimax-bethesda-roundhouse-added-to-lawsuit-over-rune-2
• https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/business/softkey-gets-an-ally-in-hostile-takeover-bid.html
• https://money.cnn.com/1998/06/22/deals/broderbund/

^ Here are the sources, at least those that I was able to find. Timur9008 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timur9008: Were you thinking of making a list of some of the most notable conflicts? I would think that might be possible, but would be better to also wrap that in a general discussion without necessarily touching on any specific case of the developer/publisher relationship and how that is often strained. I'm also thinking that while you're focusing on the more controversial ones in that source like (that I can recognize) there's others that easily come up (eg closure of Visceral Games, West/Zampella/Infinity Ward v Activision, etc.) that aren't so "controversial" but very visible. Let me noodle on how this could be approached, but there's definitely a topic here to be fairly documented, its how to approach it neutrally. --Masem (t) 14:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about making sort of a timeline. And yes the most notable conflicts. Timur9008 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you'd definitely want to start with something to outline the typical relationship between dev + pub, and how that is known to be a tense relationship particularly in AAA game development. That should have coverage in more academic sources (Books and journal papers) and then once established, a list in chronological order would be completely fair to build out. --Masem (t) 14:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alternating rows table section has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem,

Sir Clive Sinclair

I put the link in because, although London is common Geography, in the same sentence World War II is also linked, and is common in History, and not of particular importance to the surrounding narrative.

Is there a difference, or should the link to WWII also be removed?

Darcourse (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darcourse: See MOS:OVERLINK - London is considered a well known geographic location so we normally don't link it. While World War II is a common term, its not as common as the geographic term and thus would be reasonable to link. --Masem (t) 16:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided doesn't explicitly say that the link should be included or excluded. If London is 'too much' for the article (i.e. it links to a page a lot bigger than Sir Clive's, and so overshadows and belittles the page - see graded algebra for a similar concept in maths), so does the link to WWII for the same reasons.

Darcourse (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a fair statement, and given that we'd not link London in this case, and that the link to WWII is mostly just placing the time period, I think that link should go. (I'm asking over at MOS:LINK if it makes sense that well-known world events like WWII should be considered under OVERLINK for this purpose). --Masem (t) 18:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How was it "completely inappropriate"? I've been a fan of Etika's content for years, shouldn't the page focus more on his life as opposed to his suicide? --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I checked the edit revision of the suicide page. So you thought splitting the articles in two was not needed? Looking at the page without that content, I can see your point, as the page is small without it. My apologies for not taking all of this into consideration beforehand! --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion: The size issue is a big factor as well as that his Legacy section is strongly tied to the fact he committed suicide. But I will point out that as an encyclopedia, we don't "focus on one's life" over one's death, we generally follow the weight of how a person was covered, and only when Etika died was he given a large amount of coverage, most related to his mental conditions and the suicide. There are limited cases for other bios where their death has been split but as you see it is usually when the article is already long, and/or the death is very significant (like for world leaders). --Masem (t) 13:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! I agree with all of the points you have made. The majority of the sources on his page are articles discussing either his mental conditions or his suicide, so having it all covered on one page makes the most sense. I can see why subjects such as deceased world leaders or musicians (e.g. Kurt Cobain) have separate articles for their deaths since they already have long articles to begin with. I shall keep this in mind when editing Etika's article and others. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem. In 2018, you expanded Take-Two Interactive using the book "International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 46". I wanted to know whether you still had that book or the pages on TTWO for possible expansion and verification. I know that there is an apparent mirror on FundingUniverse, but I want to make sure that the original book states the same. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy I think I was using Google Books to verify the content of that FundingUniverse site. --Masem (t) 14:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll cf. with FundingUniverse then. I was struggling to find a copy of the book that did not cost upwards of $200; glad I held off. IceWelder [✉] 17:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The others will think the reality is real. Please stop. 설리가진리 (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@설리가진리: The word "drama" in the short description immediately put it as a fictional work, in the English language. --Masem (t) 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GG and WP 2601:647:C802:F200:11D6:1F75:4EF1:F9FD (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just edited ScummVM's section, clarifying that it's not just any open-source licence that prevented to resolve the case amicably but specifically the GPL, which can't be linked to the proprietary Wii SDK. While searching for when this was written, I noticed that in older versions, it said that Atari learned of this fact and threatened ScummVM for reverse engineering SCUMM in the first place, because they had no other way out of the situation, which is also what I've read on the project leader's weblog. I found that you were the one who changed that text back in 2016 in this edit and I would have just reverted it but you did not only say that Nintendo was involved but that they threatened Mistic due to that and I don't see how that could have been a mix-up, so I'm putting a citation needed to that claim that you can hopefully resolve. -- Lightkey (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, I checked the source and it was Atari that threatened to expose ScummVM's port to the Wii and its violation to Nintendo. Keep in mind that we have to go by what is verifiably and not the truth (hence why all that had to be rewritten) and while it may be the case that the SDK restricts only specific types of open source solutions, I cannot find any reliable source that states that, only that there was something with the GPL and the Wii SDK that was incompatible, nothing about the specificness of certain open source licenses. I did phrase it so that it is verified to the sources (saying it is restrictive) but the truth is still within that scope -Masem (t) 13:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this! I didn't know. Great news, thanks DBaK (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Hebrew logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. Would you mind taking a look at this? The main concern seems to be c:COM:SVG#Copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		I appreciate your diligence and persistence at Squid Game. You always assume good faith, and you deal fairly and calmly with various editors there who may make... unusual edits to this popular and fast-moving article. Not easy to do. Moncrief (talk)

Hi, I don't know if you remember a conversation we had about cropping images and copyright (I can't remember if it was on your TP or mine). I do a lot of infobox cleanup here, and when I find an lead image that does not display the article subject well, I sometimes crop the image on commons, using the croptool there. I believe you thought that this shouldn't be a problem. But I have another half-dozen copyvio messages there because they consider these derivative works I have uploaded (when the original image has a copyright problem). I've been trying to avoid issues by not cropping images that look like they have been taken professionally. But I'm still hitting photos that get deleted. I'm concerned I may get blocked there again. This is only about images already in commons and already used in articles here. The only advice I ever got there was that I am responsible, so if I am going to crop an image, I need to confirm its copyright status first. I would appreciated your thoughts. MB 23:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should ask what their approach is on the matter at the Commons pump c:COM:VP), when the original image appears to be a legitimate free upload and you crop from that, and the violation is discovered later and beyond your scope to recognize that immediately. You probably just need to have a bit more of a discriminating eye to uploads to make sure they are legit - follow source links, look for licensing statements that agree with the included info, etc. and unless you can confirm that 100%, probably best avoid doing the crop until you can get a second opinion at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, at least as I understand the process there. --Masem (t) 00:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Since "wework" was in a paraphrase and not a direct quote, I am not sure why it is relevant? Why do we care about the brand of the temporary office space provider in an unrelated article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semitones (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing this :) PS editing a newish/popular article was new for me; it was eye-opening seeing all the changes that get reverted all the time! Thanks for your attention to it. --Semitones (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: I've watchlisted that page, but I think you have followed all the right steps per protocol here per the email. --Masem (t) 02:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Keep talking and nobody explodes logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. Do you think that File:Cameroon FA.png and the file that replaced it might be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States. If they are, then perhaps their licensing can be converted to at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. If the former one needs to remain non-free, then it probably needs to go per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, yes. --Masem (t) 22:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could the slightly different soccer ball imagery in the newer of the two possibly push it over the TOO threshold? I can't really find anything about Cameroon's TOO at c:COM:Cameroon so, I'm not sure about Commons. It's only the soccer ball imagery that is a cause of concern for me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the soccer ball still has a sufficiently basic shape to not trigger US copyright, though would in UK or similar sweat of the brow countries. --Masem (t) 22:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spence v. Washington

added links pointing to New Yorker and Evacuation Day

Symbolic speech

added a link pointing to Evacuation Day

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Big Tech shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3D7AQ09M6 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Curtishanson381 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has edit-warred to restore a non-free image of this individual who has been dead just four days. Please intervene. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to propose something more formal to be included in the FUR guidelines. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) This thing has been discussed many times before at WT:NFCC, but has always ended up being archived without any real changes or clarification being made (like is the case with many NFCCP discussions). I'm afraid that the opportunity to try and really address this issue may have already long passed. Every time a file like this is uploaded, the result is usually a long and contentious discussion over its use. Sometimes the consensus turns out to be delete and other times it ends up as keep and the result seems to depend on who's participating in the discussion and how much news coverage the person in the photograph seems to be receiving. Personally, I think these images need to be dealt with quickly and decisively by deleting them right away per WP:F7 and then requiring those that want to use them to establish a clear consensus in favor of doing so; however, I don't think that is going to ever happen. The current process of discussing things first only leads to long discussions where usually nobody is bothering to look for a free image any longer and it just becomes a WP:USTHEM type of time sink. Sometimes months pass without anything being resolved which always leads to arguments that like "Well, if nobody has found a free equivalent by now, then what's the point of deleting the non-file currently being used." Ideally, it would be great if some agreed upon brightline time period could be established, but I don't think that's going to happen either without some groundwork being laid first. I think the first thing that needs to be done is like I stated in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 70#Yet again: NFCC#1 and images of the recently deceased: there needs to be an RFC to determine whether non-free images of deceased persons are acceptable to use from the moment they die. It's a simple yes and no question. If the answer is "yes", then the community has spoken and nothing else needs to be sorted out. On the other hand, if the answer is "no", then how to implement the "no" can be then discussed. The other important question that I think needs to be answered (in a separate RFC perhaps) is how to define "article about that person" as it's worded in item 10 of WP:NFCI. Does it mean only stand-alone biographies, or include event focused articles or subsections of other articles? Until these two things are clarified, every thing is always going to be assessed on a file-by-file basis which means these discussions are always going to be inconsistent and contentious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. What's your opinion on File:Coca-Cola Ligaen 1995.jpg and File:Faxe Kondi Ligaen.png as they're currently being used in Danish Superliga#History. These files were actually deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14#File:Faxe Kondi Ligaen.png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14#File:Coca-Cola Ligaen 1995.jpg, but were subsequently restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 5. I still think the Faxe Kondi logo might be OK to relicense a {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but that never got commented on due to the problems that resulted from the mass nomination of so many of these files. The other logo never received and comments at its FFD, but I don't think there's any chance for this one to be converted to PD, even per c:COM:TOO United States. While these logos aren't being used in a gallery without any content, I'm not quite sure whether what is written about them is sufficient to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4 if they need to remain licensed as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was wondering if you could remind people there that the J K Rowling page is under discretionary sanctions. There's been quite a bit of name-calling, unhelpful sarcasm, and bad faith assumptions and I'd hate for that to continue escalating to the point where ANI or other conduct noticeboards become necessary. The RfC has turned into somewhat of a mess (partly by my fault) and I think it might need some strong words that editors should behave a bit more civil than usual. Most editors have been entirely unproblematic and constructive, it's just a few of us that might have gotten carried away I think. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squid_Game&oldid=1058058358 adding that the execution of a man by NK has been "disproven." Can you provide the source? —SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Squid Game#Death penalty in North Korea for owning squid games --Masem (t) 05:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The links leads to nowhere! Please provide a credible source regarding your claim that it has been "disproven," by who? Who said that? Which news outlet? I'll restore back my edit if you can't provide one! —SquidHomme ^(talk) 06:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to let you know that, because of your inability to provide a credible source regarding your claim that the executions has been "disproven," or your lack of response, I am restoring my previous edit. Please don't revert my edits without providing a credible source that prove otherwise.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 04:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed you to the talk page where sources that discredit that have been provided. We've already discussed that and removed it. --Masem (t) 04:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Squid Game. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;

1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you need to read the talk page links I've given above. There are sources there that state that that the claims of the death sentence are very unlikely to be true, so consensus was not to include the information. Your additions to that, ignoring the talk page, are edit warring. --Masem (t) 05:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which part of the links you've given above indicates that it's been disproven? Which news outlet disprove it? New York Times? Washington Post? Can you give a link to that news outlet? There was never a consensus. Not a single RfC in that talk page regarding this topic. Also, I've waited for your response for days, and yet you couldn't provide some.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is not required for every decision. That section on the talk page is not very long and the links are very clear so I shouldn't have to explain which ones were considered as the debunking ones. But the links that are in that talk page Business Insider which is citing HK News. --Masem (t) 05:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, there is no NK News link (like the one you gave) in the talk page. Which is why I asked you to provide one. The Business Insider's link lead to nowhere. Also, can you differentiate between "experts expressing doubts" and "experts disprove?" Clearly the article itself is about experts from outside NKorea "expressing doubt." There is no factual evidence to disprove it, nothing conclusive. Only "experts expressing their opinions."—SquidHomme ^(talk) 08:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say to you because the Business Insider link works fine for me. And other editors on the talk page have also already said this is a questionable story to post. --Masem (t) 12:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem,

I'm asking you this because I see you comment on a lot of policy related issues. My question is how does one determine how much weight to assign a subtopic in an article? This is typically important when trying to determine how much space should a controversy occupy in an article. One answer that I seem to have consistently gotten is: find sources that give a broad overview of the topic, and then see how much they cover the controversy (Someguy1221, Vanamonde93 and Levivich). Examples of this being done are: my table at Islam in Finland and Levivich's table at The Holocaust.

Do you see this as the right approach or would you suggest something different? If so, I'd really like to see this clarified in policy. Thanks for your time. VR _talk 02:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey there Masem, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the last sentence you edited into the top of the article Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson is in need of a citation. Thanks! JTW1998+ (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JTW1998+: WP:LEDECITE Leads do not need citations as long as the information is sourced in the body. --Masem (t) 21:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Wii (estimated annual readership: 1,093,009) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw this revert of yours on No Time to Die in which you say that the 'non-loginwalled link' is, "not appropriate to include". Is this not appropriate to include specifically for that article or all articles? Because the user has done this same thing to many other citations in articles in just today alone. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: There is a difference between a respected archival site like the Internet Archive or archive.today that we know captures the page in full (even if bypasses the paywall) vs these random user site that have captured the media, which we have no idea in the long term about their reliability. So no, those other additions should not be done. Archive.today has means to capture beyond paywall sites so that should be the preferred source. --Masem (t) 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little confused on how it isn't significant? It is part of Expansion Pack, no? SoyokoAnis - talk 16:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoyokoAnis (talk · contribs) It is part of the expansion pass, but its not a detail needed for the article's lede. I moved it down into the body. --Masem (t) 16:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see that. I thought you had removed it. Sorry and Thanks, happy editing. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem! I just wanted to take this time to say thanks for all you do for Wikipedia, and especially for all you do at BLPN. It's such an important policy, and I'm glad we have people around such as yourself to lend a hand. I hope you have a happy holiday season, and may the coming year bring you great happiness and good fortune. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Masem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 16:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hi Masem. Do you think this needs to be non-free or can it be converted to {{PD-logo}}? Given the way the file is currently being used, it might not be able to be kept if it needs to remain non-free. It was originally used in Rowdy Energy per it's non-free use rationale, but that was merged into Kyle Busch a few weeks back and the justification for non-free use is no longer the same. Of course, the merge might be could be undone, butI'm not sure the NFCC should wait and see if that happens. Anyway, the file could always be WP:REFUNDed in such a case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it could be PD-logo since it is simple enough and from the US. --Masem (t) 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masem, Going to add the line "and even protected an employee who sexually harassed from being fired" back, This is a part of the necessary information on the topic. ForTheGoodOfAllofUs — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a Forbes critique is not reliable? ~~ForTheGoodOfAllofUs~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS/P. Forbes contributors are just not considered reliable compared to contributions with editorial oversight. --Masem (t) 15:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will be doing a proper merge tag later, but since you were the person who spun out Development of BioShock Infinite all those years ago, thought I'd let you know I've been looking at improving the parent article and I think there's more than enough room to fold the info back in. See Talk:BioShock Infinite. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metroidvania games has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem -- I see you are the admin with the most edits to the BLP noticeboard. Could you take a look at the above BLP -- I came across this because of a BLP prod, saved it by finding a source, but the source raises obvious problems because I have found no evidence by Googling & looking at the works in Google Books that the pseudonym and the name the article was created under have been linked. The creator is long since blocked and there's been extensive editing by what looks to be James.

I moved it to get rid of the immediate problem but I'm feeling out of my depth here -- I was thinking of doing a courtesy edit to acknowledge the major contributors and then revision deleting the entire history. Is this a reasonable course of action? Thanks for your help! Espresso Addict (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is short enough that perhaps a WP:TNT is appropriate to start the article anew. But I would get more opinions on that. --Masem (t) 07:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seumas McNally Grand Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norco.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. Saw your name here and assume you must be well informed and up to date on all things to do with images. For my own "what to do next time", what would you do here? I see that the article has enough images and therefore — according to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy — decontextualised images in a gallery should be removed. Am I reading that correctly? Thanks for your time and any help. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Yes, I would agree the gallery should be removed since there's a link to Commons for the location available. --Masem (t) 12:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Left 4 Dead (series), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left 4 Dead (series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masem. Do you think the "shoe shape" of File:SportsShoesLogo.png pushes it above c:COM:TOO United States. It's probably not "PD-logo" per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, but might be OK to relicense as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. FWIW, if it needs to remain non-free, I don't think it can be kept as currently used in Bruce Bannister#Business career. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at its plot summaries and seeing if you can help reduce any of them? That of course is if you don't mind. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 03:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Btspurplegalaxy: I am only about a few episodes into the series myself but I can tell immediately the latter episodes are far too long. I expect to finish this weekend to be able to take a stab at trimming to 400words or less. --Masem (t) 05:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hope you enjoy the rest of the series. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 05:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Masem! I can't remember the last time we crossed paths, but I hope everything has been good since then! If you don't remember me, I used to religiously haunt The X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time pages (well... I still do). I'm reaching out to you because I'm currently working on my PhD in library science, and my dissertation is on the information behaviors of fan editors. (Here's a more detailed outline of my project, if you'd like to read about it!) My work will largely be autoethnographic, meaning that I'm taking notes about what I do, but I'm also wanting to work qualitative interviewing into the works. Since you're into TV and video games, and you're also a mega-prolific editor, I feel like you'd be a good person to talk to. Would you be interested in chatting with me about your information experiences? (Oh, also, I'm more than happy to jump to email in the time being, if you'd prefer.)--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can help, but email would likely be best to continue. I should have my email via Wikipedia's interface set up. --Masem (t) 05:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I just sent over an email. Thanks!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I just wanted to check to see if the email went through!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 19:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: Just letting you know I did get the email but just haven't had time to respond to it. Hopefully in next day or two. --Masem (t) 13:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: No problem! I just wanted to be safe and check in. Thanks!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: One last note: If it's easier, I could also just email you the questions. You could then write up responses at your leisure and send 'em back my way. (This also makes the transcription process not nearly as daunting!)--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 16:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: Just sent a email back to you. --Masem (t) 13:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Excellent! Thank you! I haven't gotten it yet, but I think my inbox is having some weirdness. I'll give it a second.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Hmm, it still hasn't arrived. Could you resend it to auto_wiki@ku.edu? Thanks!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be resent. --Masem (t) 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For the GIF and caption (if you added that caption) on Baba Is You. The GIF along with the caption describes how the game works really well without getting to complicated. I myself probably would be able to make something that's descriptive enough to get the point across without going into excessive detail. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was banned from the wikipedia discord a while ago, and I am still unaware why. Can you please tell me why I was banned so I can appeal? Thanks!

WeaponizingArchitecture | talk to me 01:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Masem!

Recently, I nominated Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes for GA and it passed. The next step for this article is getting it to FA, to which I am requesting you mentor this article to the nomination process.

Do you think you could fulfill this request? elijahpepe@wikipedia 16:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of ouriosity, why is the Pokémon World Championships not a major event? -Prince Silversaddle (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mistook that the discontinuation of the 3DS line as the addition (which is not a major event). The PWC can be added back in. --Masem (t) 04:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Amazing Race 14 logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Amazing Race 14 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there- I'm a bit confused by this edit... 'present' is indeed used to indicate that a show is still running, 'last_aired' isn't used only once a show ends. From the infobox instructions: The first air date of the show's last episode on its original network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{End date}} if the show is ended.

Even though the editor in question has now been blocked as a sock, isn't their edit still correct?... Magitroopa (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second second is technically not yet announced or not ready for airing and no production is taking place yet, or in other words the second season has not really been confirmed. There is no reason to say it is "present"—it's not ongoing since second season doesn't have a production, either renewed. —Ctrlwiki (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly how it's used in the context of WP:TV- 'present' does not mean the series is either airing new episodes or is in production/filming at this very moment, it just means the series is a currently-running series. Even if a second season has not officially been announced yet, the series has still already aired episodes, and thus, is present. Then if/when the series is cancelled or it's been 12 months since the last new episode has aired/released, then the 'present' can be changed to whatever the finale date is.

And also- the show was indeed renewed for a season two earlier this year: [17] [18] [19] Magitroopa (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen others remove "present" from this field as being unnecessary, but I guess the template documentation says to use it, so I will add it back. --Masem (t) 03:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to point out that your edits on the Warhol / Goldsmith Supreme Court hearing page are not correct. You have reversed wholesale my changes, which apart from going against the spirit of this place, you should check your sources - maybe use the court papers as I do, which are freely available to get a full understanding of the case before making unilateral changes. Making public comment about my perceived inaccuracies is not cool. You are wrong on this and should reverse your changes. Otherwise it just makes a joke of the whole thing. Literaryboy55 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]