User talk:Hammersoft

[Certified Idiot]

Re: userspace image

Hi! Thanks for commenting out that picture on User:MrMoustacheMM/Year of the Pig (EP). I had no idea that wasn't allowed, but now that I'm aware I won't repeat the mistake. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Hammersoft. Hope everything is well. It's come to my attention that you have been refusing to discuss your edits to certain files in regards to whether they are Public Domain or copyrighted/non-free. If I'm not mistaken, this has cumulated in several ANI posts and a large amount of bicker with other users, borderline trolling, incivility, and even harassment for the past year. Now it's nothing personal, and I do hate to tell you this, but several users (myself included), believe that some of your recent behavior has been out of line with the norm. That being said, if you continue to edit disruptively, refuse to discuss your edits, or troll, a RfC bearing your name will be opened. Now the goal is not to have you blocked, let alone banned, but rather bring it to your attention that some users aren't happy with what you're currently doing. However, please bear in mind that such measures will be generously applied if a solution/compromise cannot be reached. Consider yourself warned. Best wishes, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• You've cited no specific edits. Also, referring to an anonymous "several users" is not helpful. Another user recently attempted to do that, claiming lots of people were contacting him through e-mail. When challenged, nothing was produced. I don't mean to claim there aren't such users, but rather that I should have the privilege of addressing their concerns, and can not do so if I don't know who they are. You accuse me of in general refusing to discuss whether an image is PD or non-free. This is blatantly and provably false. I'll here cite File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as just one of many discussions I have been involved in.
• As to what I believe spawned this latest, debating with BQZip01 isn't worth my time and it isn't worth the aggravation I find myself experiencing. That's not an insult to BQZip01, but an assessment of me. I think blocking someone for assessing themselves would be rather unprecedented. As to the e-trade logo; you're absolutely correct in so far as I refuse to discuss my edits with BQZip01. At every opportunity that he and I have worked together, it has ended badly. I have taken great pains to avoid BQZIp01 as much as I can. Nevertheless, I didn't avoid discussion on the e-trade logo; I actually took it to a wider forum, as can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:NFC#File:ETrade.svg_free_or_non-free.3F precisely because I am desperately attempting to avoid interaction with BQZip01. Me debating anything with him never results in any positive progress. Again, that's not an assessment of him, but an assessment of how he and I interact.
• As to my general behavior; there are plenty of people who do not like me. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to be liked or disliked, and whether someone finds me personally appealing or not is of no concern to me. The area in which I primarily work, that of NFCC policy adherence, generates a lot of animosity. If I were to place value in the hate filled opinions of others in regards to my edits towards NFCC compliance, I would never EVER touch NFCC issues. A rather large swath of people hate that policy at a minimum. I know of only one person...one...who thinks I do not edit in compliance with policy in this regard. I've been personally attacked innumerable times for conducting work in this arena. Not once has any of those people been blocked for their attacks. Not once. Yet, I remain a strong defender of the policy. Further, if you look through my diffs in detail, you will be very hard pressed to identify even a single attack against any registered editor here on the project. I do use sarcasm to make my point at times. I often poke significant holes in the arguments people use. I am often direct in the words that I use. However, I do not attack anyone nor would I. I have, of late, backed off in my use of sarcasm knowing that it deters from the overarching goal. I think you will find that too in reviewing my edits over the last few months.
• If there are particular behaviors you think are in error, I'm welcome to hear them (and please provide cites). But please, do not present me with an anonymous "several users", and please do not misconstrue hatred for my in-line-with-policy actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit my userpage without my permission.

It would be appreciated, thank you.

TheClerksWell (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been harassing people as well. Please get something better to do in your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are following the rules, why are you making so many people frustrated and angry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe because so many people don't like our non-free content policy? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You remove peoples pictures in your spare time? Get a life.

TheClerksWell (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• One of the many things I do is ensure compliance with our WP:NFCC policy, yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

...is vacuous? Sorry, couldn't resist :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, errant keypress saved prematurely...) I presume that you're talking about, in general, the conflict between you and BQZip01 (talk · contribs) described here and in the RfC section, above, on this talk page. I commend your desire to try to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the other editor is willing to participate then there's a chance this may work, and I think that you might get help through the Mediation Cabal, but both of you will have to be willing participants for it to have any real hope. The folks at MedCab frequently say that their service is just for content disputes, but there's no hard and fast rule there against doing conduct disputes. I'd suggest, however, that you need to try to get at least a tacit agreement from the other user before listing it at MedCab so that he won't feel like it is being thrown at him. The part that you may find difficult to get MedCab to do is the "have outside third parties weigh in saying one solution better than the other or coming up with their own solution(s)," but I'd give that a pretty good chance if you and the other user can agree to that being part of the solution in advance of going to MedCab with it. Even if you can't get help at MedCab, per se, you might find a Cabalista who would be willing to take it on individually. Good luck with this, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Having a : instead of a | in that {{User|BQZip01}} really messed stuff up there for a second. Sorry about that... TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• No worries :) Easy to fix. When I first saw it I was completely confused on what happened :)
• Back to the point; maybe I just don't understand the dispute resolution process. My current understanding is that before getting to mediation of any kind, you need to have had an RfC that didn't resolve things. I'm trying to avoid all of the heavyweight process involved in achieving what I think is an amicable resolution. My intended proposed resolution of the conflict is for both parties to (1) not follow the other's edits and make any sort of changes at such places based on following edits, (2) recognize that we have areas of overlap in interest but where we happen across each other to minimize communication between each other as much as possible, and (3) not post to the other party's talk pages unless it is an emergency. The problem here is BQZip01 does not find this solution equitable. I doubt he'd agree to mediation. I'm not looking for a bludgeoning tool against him, but instead an outside, uninvolved, unbiased opinion that says my proposal makes sense and wouldn't it be a good idea to follow it, or another solution I haven't imagined that results in the petty disputes between he and I going away. There's a few bazillion diffs out there in this dispute, and I'm quite confident both of us can generate enough evidence against the other to 'prove' our cases. But that's not what I'm after. I'm after the dispute going away. I don't care if I'm wrong or right, I just want it to end, and I don't want to have to go through an excessive, long, drawn out process to achieve what I think is pretty blatantly obvious at this point; BQZip01 and I interacting is going to create drama. So, come up with a solution to stop interacting in as much as possible. I can't seem to find such a solution in the WP:DR process. Thoughts? Thanks for your time in any respect. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to become more than superficially involved in this (though I have the sinking feeling those are words of doom), but would you mind if I talked to him about this? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not having the time to deal with this is one of the reasons I'm looking for a lightweight solution. I really, really, really don't want to be playing the part of a lawyer here, trying to wend my way through the judicial process, for what I think is blatantly obvious. If you are volunteering, and can spare the time, you're more than welcome for my part. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me give it a whirl. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See my Proposal to BQZip01. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Yes, I'm interested in participating. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by way of explanation and some minor disclosure. The "tea-sip" PS to that proposal refers to the fact that BQZip01 makes prominant reference on his user page to having attended Texas A&M University; I attended their ancient rival, the University of Texas at Austin, so I had to give a gentle jab on that point. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I saw it. I thought it a good idea actually, in attempting to keep things light. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you've not seen them, take a look at last night's posts at BQ's talk page and please respond there. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Certificate of Mediation on my talk page. (If you've seen it already, please take another look as I've just added a new subsection about my further participation in your dispute.) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Venue for discussing non-free images?

Greetings! I'm involved in editing an article (Ariana Grande) that has an image that I think has an invalid rationale for free use, because the image is replaceable. Right now, it's tagged with {{db-norat}}, even though the user who uploaded the image keeps removing the tag. Is there a forum where the legitimacy of that rationale can be discussed, or should I just send it to Files for deletion, and have my reason for deletion be that there is no valid fair use for the image on Wikipedia? I know you've been around the block a few more times than I with respect to non-free images, so I'm hoping you can point me to the discussion forum that keeps hiding from me when I look at WP:Non-free content and related pages. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review is the page you seek; you tag the image and then there's discussion on how good the rationale is, or if it is replaceable, etc.. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I responded where Masem suggested. Masem, thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And Hammersoft, thank you for jumping in and responding in this case! —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images in discography articles

Hi, Hammersoft

I noticed that you seem to be interested in paroling non-free image usage and have recently dealt with non-free images in two of the discography articles to which I had attended.

I wonder if you could please analyze the following articles and deal with non-free images in there according to standing policies and best practices. Thanks in advance.

• Music of Final Fantasy I and II
• Music of Final Fantasy III
• Music of Final Fantasy IV
• Music of Final Fantasy V
• Music of Final Fantasy VI
• Music of the Final Fantasy VII series
• Music of Final Fantasy VIII
• Music of Final Fantasy IX
• Music of Final Fantasy X
• Music of Final Fantasy X-2
• Music of Final Fantasy XI
• Music of Final Fantasy XII
• Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series
• Music of the Chocobo series
• Music of the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series
• List of Final Fantasy compilation albums
• Final Fantasy concerts

Fleet Command (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Working backwards;

• Music of Final Fantasy I and II
• Music of Final Fantasy III
• Music of Final Fantasy IV
• Music of Final Fantasy V
• Music of Final Fantasy VI
• Music of the Final Fantasy VII series
• Music of Final Fantasy VIII
• Music of Final Fantasy IX
• Music of Final Fantasy X; one non-free image File:Ffxcover.jpg, which contains boiler plate rationale in the description page. Boiler plate rationale in this case is invalid. Further, this use contravenes WP:NFC. Four non-free media files. File:Final Fantasy X - Original Soundtrack mix.ogg is use created audio montage, requiring rationales for each portion of the montage. Rationale exists only for the whole montage. File:Feel - Go dream - Yuna & Tidus mix.ogg is use created audio montage, requiring rationales for each portion of the montage. Rationale exists only for the whole montage. File:Suteki da ne (Piano Collections - Final Fantasy X).ogg, File:Ending Theme (Piano Collections - Final Fantasy X).ogg and the first two montages all have a rationale that is a cut/paste/change slightly rationale. There's not a lot of text to support any of these four audio files, and they're only loosely tied (if at all) to the text.
• Music of Final Fantasy X-2; one non-free image File:Ffx2 front.jpg, which contains boiler plate rationale in the description page. Boiler plate rationale in this case is invalid. Further, this use contravenes WP:NFC.
• Music of Final Fantasy XI; one non-free image File:Ffxiost SQEX-10017~8 front.jpg, which contains boiler plate rationale in the description page. Boiler plate rationale in this case is invalid. Further, this use contravenes WP:NFC. Non-free media file File:Final Fantasy XI - Original Soundtrack mix.ogg has rationale for the user created audio montage, but not for individual works. Rationale therefore fails. Also, article fails to discuss the audio file's sound in particular, disconnecting the file from the context in which it is in. That's a fail.
• Music of Final Fantasy XII; one non-free image File:Front coverffxiiost.JPG, which has a rationale but the rationale is not tied to the article in question. Further, this use contravenes WP:NFC.
• Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series; one non-free image File:Final Fantasy Tactics Original Soundtrack.jpg, which has a rationale but the rationale is not tied to the article in question. Further, this use contravenes WP:NFC.
• Music of the Chocobo series; one non-free image File:Chocobos mysterious dungeon ost cover.jpg, which contains boiler plate rationale in the description page. Boiler plate rationale in this case is invalid. Further, this use contravenes WP:NFC.
• Music of the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series; one non-free image File:Final_fantasy_crystal_chronicles.jpg, which contains boiler plate rationale in the description page. Boiler plate rationale in this case is invalid. Further, this use contravenes WP:NFC. Non-free media file File:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles - Kaze No Ne.ogg has rationale, and article discusses sound of the piece ergo supported use in this case I think.
• List of Final Fantasy compilation albums; empty of images, featured article.
• Final Fantasy concerts; one non-free image File:Dear Friends - Final Fantasy VIII.jpg. Rationale exists. On quick review, passes.

That's it for now. More when I have time. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts are highly appreciated. Please feel free to go straight forward and nominate any violator you can attend to for deletion. I'll aid you with the nominating as soon as I shake off the current matters I am attending to now.

Note that we should not participate in each other's AfDs (Administrators consider it an act of bad faith) unless there is something very tide-turning to say; even when we do that, we should make it clear that we are acting both in league and in good faith. Thanks in advance. Fleet Command (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I updated a couple more above. I don't see the need for AfDs here, but even if there were AfDs there's no reason I can't participate in anything you participate in. You asked my advice. You didn't ask me to vote, or to vote in any particular way. There's substantial cause for WP:NFCR review here. I do recall there being some discussion resulting in a supposed compromise allowing on album cover per discography (and these are discographies, regardless of title or categorization). But, the compromise is flawed and violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, as I've argued before. As with many fair use issues, the compromise allowing fair use in the first place per WP:NFCC is the compromise. We don't layer on more and more compromises to that compromise. Plus, the "compromise" isn't codified anywhere. If the supporters of the series of articles want a "compromise" they need to get consensus to change WP:NFC wording to support it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need more discussion on that point (since I had some language), and at least RFC it. I'm going to restart that discussion on NFC only because we need clarity either way on the issue. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Carnival Logo

I noticed you removed the Carnival Corp logo from the template, as per non-free restrictions. I was just wondering, if I was to produce my own image of the logo, which is also the Carnival house flag as opposed to a TM, would that be permitted? Crazy-dancing (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• That would depend. If you upload the image and tag it as you feel appropriately I can have a look at it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC(s)

So which way do you want to go here? You and BQ combined, or each separate? Can I delete the combined one, even though it seems to be properly certified? If you really think they should both be combined, make your case and the rest of us will try to make it work if it seems appropriate (to heck with whatever "rules" there may be). If you have decided that separate RFCs are better (and I'm fairly sure yours is coming pretty soon), then let's nuke the combo RFC. Let me know. Franamax (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer they were together. I fail to see the point of separating the two RfCs. They are deeply intertwined and revolve around the same central issues. However, BQZip01 refuses to participate in the joint one. I'd be happy to go with what you think is best. Regardless, I do not want the joint one deleted at this time. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

rationale for book cover image

So what kind of rationale would be acceptable for use in a Signpost book review on the book? Oh, what on earth is this I see in the fair-use policy? No. 8:

A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Tony (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem is that The Signpost is in WP space, not article space. The NFC page is tagged at the top: "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

A critical review in The Signpost on a book about Wikipedia is clearly, by "common sense", an "occasional exception", is it not? Tony (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So the logical extension, now I'm familiar with the matter, is here. Tony (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC #9 is policy, not guideline. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And Item 8 of the policy says "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." On what basis were the two pages already listed in the exemption category, if not "common sense"? Tony (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The two exemptions there have to do with, I believe, bot related activities. Regardless, there was no discussion I'm aware of that granted those exceptions. Even the main page of the project was not granted an exception. There was heavy debate about that. Long standing practice had been to permit non-free imagery on the main page. But, that practice has been invalidated. The best place to plead your case for a revision to the policy is at WT:NFC --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC book cover images

I have undid your edits to the page. These images are justifiable under fair use under number 8 of the exact page you tried to use to disprove fair use.

The rational I believe you tried to use to make it non-fair use would be that of it being a picture that shows multiple parts of a series at once. However, there is more than a little bit for each book and because basically all of these books have no page of their own, the only option was to add the pictures and put them on that page.

If you want me to remove them, please put explicit rational on my talk page instead of just linking me an article that I have seen many times.

Salamakajakawaka (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)