User talk:Hammersoft

Old content

• Before 6 April 2011 removal
• Before 11 July 2011 removal
• Before 23 September 2011 removal
• minor removal
• Before 20 February 2012 removal
• Before 23 January 2013 removal

Weird Number Edit

I made an edit on the Weird Numbers page earlier today. It was the first time I have ever edited a Wikipedia page, so I apologize if I did not edit properly. I was programming an algorithm to detect weird numbers. I used Stanley Kravitz's formula from the page to create my program. The output included weird numbers, but also many numbers that were not weird (I compared them to OEIS's database). I checked my program for any mistakes, and, when I could bit find any, I worked the formula by hand. I probably should have done this in the first place, but I just assumed the formula was correct. I don't have any sources to cite, however, I can prove the formula wrong. If R = [2^KQ-(Q+1)]/[(Q+1)-2^K], where Q is prime and K is a positive integer, then an example value of R = 7 for Q = 5 and K = 2 ([2^2(5)-(5+1)]/[(5+1)-2^2] = [20-6]/[6-4] = 14/2 = 7). Since R is prime, then we can plug it into the next equation: n = (2^K-1)(RQ), where n is supposed to be a weird number. n = (2^2-1)(7)(3) = (2)(7)(3) = 42. 42 is not a weird number, as the smallest weird number is 70. Stanley Kravitz's formula still yields some weird numbers, however, it skips many numbers in the sequence and comes up with many numbers that are not weird, like 42. I believe the formula should be taken down from Wikipedia, or at least have an explanation beneath it. Pendergrassdrew (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment. I think it would be best directed at the talk page of the article or at the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TWFanmily

I read what you wrote, but I have deleted this because its SPA author is evidently determined to have 3kb of unsourced fluff or nothing, in which case the answer is nothing, and maybe salt if it comes back again. It isn't actually mentioned on the group's page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I concur with your assessment. There's enough material out there to warrant the redirect, but if the SPA refuses to talk or work with us on it, so be it. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added by Theopolisme at 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blanca Callahan

The creator of the Blanca Callahan article reverted your edit to redirect the page back to the band article. I discovered this later and simply nominated it for deletion. Feel free to support or oppose the nomination here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom case notice; re: WP:IPH

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WP:IPH and image placeholders and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

On civility

I'll admit that I haven't always been as civil as I could have. However, you've always been polite and good-humored, and I appreciate that. You also share my concerns about ArbCom, inflexible rule enforcement, and abuse of CU. I don't get on here a whole lot anymore, for obvious reasons, but I was just reading some of the old comments on your talk page and have to say I wholeheartedly agree. My experiences with admins on here have been overwhelmingly negative, even with my disruptive edits thrown in. However, the regular editors---especially you and JohnInDC---have been kind and helpful, even when I was obviously causing a lot of frustration for them (you). I do care about Wikipedia despite my disruption, and I honestly think the best way to get a fair working climate on this site would be to switch the admins out with non-admins. Would it affect reliability or content quality? Probably not a whole lot. You guys do the same work they do for the most part; you just do it more pleasantly. Anyway, take care, and don't bother reporting this obvious sock to AIV---I will actually do it myself this time and save you the hassle. Yajtastic (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've long maintained that the highest 'rank' on the project is editor. Every other position works in support of editors in one form or another. Such people are given extra privileges by the community of editors to conduct work that editors need to have done. What some people see as the power pyramid with ArbCom at the top is actually inverted; the base of the pyramid is at the top, with ArbCom at the very bottom. All of those roles below editor support the levels above them. Without editors, Wikipedia is nothing. If every single editor walked away from the project, there would be nothing for administrators to do, nothing for ArbCom to do. If the reverse happened, the project would change significantly, but it would continue on. In my experience, this is something that is lost on many administrators and ArbCom (as a whole).
• For my part, thank you for the compliments. It may seem strange, but I place more value in your compliments than I do in such words from some other people here. You've done enough socking and disruption to have your own sockpuppet page dating about half a year, with a large number of socks blocked. That someone in your shoes should send a compliment to someone who has been part of having those accounts blocked is I think remarkable. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Iceland national futsal team

Hi. I noticed you removed an image there in 2011. I was wondering though, that same image is in use in the article "Football association of Iceland" and "Iceland national football team" as a relevant image, that is, it's the logo of the Icelandic FA. Why, and I've tried to read and understand what you linked when you removed it, is the logo of the Icelandic FA unwanted when there's an article about one of the national teams it runs? I'm sure it would fall under fair use, although I'm not quite clear on wikipedia's fair use policy. finval (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's ok. Few people are clear about it; it's too convoluted. WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific non-free rationale for each use of a non-free item. Thus, if File:Iceland FA.png is used on five articles, once per article, it needs five rationales. Right now, it is in fact in use on five articles, but has rationales for only four of those uses. The use of it on Iceland national under-21 football team is not supported by a rationale on the image description page. There is also no rationale on the image description page for use on Iceland national futsal team. If you want to use it on the latter article, you should add a detailed rationale on the image's description page. For instructions on how to do this, see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. If I understand you correctly the same wording as in the other four licenses would suffice for both U-21 and the futsal team, although the wording doesn't really strike me with any meaning (but that's probably due to my not perfect understanding of English). I'm going to edit that then. finval (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't tell you more than what I've told you. Unfortunately, if I tell you to do anything at this point, it could be seen as disruptive by some people. I don't do work related to WP:NFCC enforcement anymore in part for this reason. Just follow the directions at WP:NFURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Banjo the Woodpile Cat

A user named ‎Deltasim removed some of the information of the Production section in the article for Banjo the Woodpile Cat. Can you please do something about that user? FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would take the issue up for discussion with the user on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As I have stated, the previous plot is too long. There is absolutely no need to write down every little thing on an article. This leads to both spoilers and page bloating. And the production information is mostly trivial and has no citations and therefore does not fit on the page. Are there any other complaints you wish to lodge regarding the article? Deltasim (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you guys discuss this elsewhere? I have no interest in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Logos in tables

Hammersoft,

There has been recent edits of school logos being added to tables in apparent contradiction to WP:NFTABLE guidelines. SEC, Big Ten, and ACC conference articles that probably could use your commentary or action, at least so policy, guideline and precedent are appropriately cited and applied. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• CP, thank you for raising this issue. It's been on my wiki to-do to bring this to Hammersoft's attention for the past several days, given his expertise in the area and his history of non-free image enforcement. I am also particularly sensitive to the inappropriate use of the trademarked Gator head logo, which is a non-free image, because its possible overuse has been challenged in the past. In recongition of those non-free image issues, WikiProject University of Florida and WikiProject Gators specifically limit the use of the Gator head logo to the primary team articles (e.g., Florida Gators, Florida Gators football, Florida Gators women's gymnastics, etc.), and use alternative all-text service marks for rivalry, season and game articles (of which there are many more). I note that the editor who added these logos to the Southeastern Conference article did not add a non-free image use rationale to File:Florida Gators logo.svg nor the other SEC schools' sports logo image files.

I believe it would be appropriate to remove both the sports team logos as non-free images and the team color hex boxes from the table in question. The use of logos and colors n this instance appears to be primarily decorative, especially when the logos and colors are already displayed on the primary team pages. Hammersoft, your intervention in this matter is invited. If you require talk page back-up in dealing with the aftermath, please ping me, and I will do my best to gently explain the non-free image issues to any editors who disagree with the removal of these logos. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• (note: Not disagreeing with Dirtlawyer) The WP:NFCC policy is void. It is so loosely enforced as to defy any definition of the word 'enforced'. I gave up NFCC enforcement over a year ago. As is, NFCC is badly abused all over the project; so much so that we have nearly half a million non-free images hosted here now. Think about how big of a number that is. There is no more point in enforcing the policy. I have nothing else to add. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending deletion of Sri Lankan banknotes

Please see my note at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Banknotes_of_the_Sri_Lankan_rupee. I have nominated the Commons-hosted Sri Lankan banknotes for deletion on Commons. If you believe that these are appropriate fair use, you may wish to take action to have them moved to :en (I do not endorse either moving them or not moving them, but since you had expressed a view that these are appropriate fair use, I wanted to serve fair warning). --B (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of 54th Regiment Mass link deletion

The reason I put the site out their was to let people know that a non-profit site is hosting a re-enactment of a battle that the 54th participated in. I am not trying to spam or gain hit points only to allow an opportunity for people to further explore history by knowing where to see it in a re-enacted environment. The group has members of the re-enactment community that portray the 54th to be apart of the living history and talk to the attendees. Not sure how that violated the policy.Carolinareb (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unless this group is gaining reputation as confirmed by secondary sources, then attempting to "let people know" about them on Wikipedia will be a non-starter. Please do not add the links. If you would like to learn more about what external links are appropriate for inclusion in articles, please see WP:EL. Happy to answer any other questions you may have. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• I understand what is being conveyed in your decision,but still not sure if the reasoning is along the lines of what the intent of the link was for. I have read the guidelines to external links. I was using the official links section that allows an organization to present coverage to what the content article presented in Wiki article. The site linked has historical context and are run by the Confederate Heritage Trust which has put on Siege of Charleston historical events during the last 13 years. Our work is recognized by the National Park Service, South Carolina Historic Society and other historical organizations. I went down the avoidable list and did not see where my link was part of those listed. Take care. Carolinareb (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I've answered this question already. Coming to Wikipedia and going through a number of articles adding a link to your organization's web site is not acceptable behavior. I'm sorry. As you noted yourself, you were trying to let people about a re-enactment. That is promotional. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote an organization or its events. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mollica93 and user page edits

In the past you and I have both seen Mollica93 use their user page and sandboxes to host content for off-wiki purposes (contests, rankings, etc). Mollica recently made edits[1] to the user page of DREK93 (talk · contribs) which I thought was odd. I've got several possibilities going around in my head of what could be happening (including that the edits are completely innocuous). Would you be willing to take a look and see if there is anything that concerns you? --TreyGeek (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)