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
• Before 29 April 2014 removal

Note re: Lethtotheb

Hi Hammersoft, not sure how familiar you are with the case, but the user Lethtotheb, who you reported to AIV here is an obvious sock of HoshiNoKaabi2000. You can check out the SPI report here. As you probably know, since the original account has been indeffed for vandalism, once we identify the user as a sock, we can revert on sight and ask at AIV that the user be indeffed for obvious socking. If you look at some of the other socks' contrib history it'll be pretty clear where they like to hit: Cartoonito, JimJam, Forever (Drake song), Nick Jr. (UK & Ireland), etc.[1][2][3]. Anyhow, just trying to save you a few minutes worth of warning template tedium! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up :) First encounter. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No probs! Thanks for helping out. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Name

Sorry but you seem to have mistaken my name for profanity. My name actually refers to Anus, an Austronesian language spoken in Indonesia in which I am proficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuscorkscrew (talk • contribs) 13:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Please sign your talk page comments in the future. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for info

Thanks for info, i put the link as there was another link previously. That made me think it is valid to put a link like that. P.S. Also Please Remove : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_application_development#Smartphone_application_development_companies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepdhawan (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit taken down for Hofbrauhaus Pittsburgh

I recently edited the history of Hofbrauhaus Pittsburgh which shows up under Hofbrauhaus. The description entered on WIKI was a slanderous few sentences about a lawsuite a few years ago and had nothing to do with the actual history of the restaurant. I simply pasted the 1 paragraph statement about what the restaurant is from their website, it's no different than what's on the descriptions for the other locations. --HBH Pittsburgh (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with the edit is that it is not neutral. It reads as advertising copy. Further, you've noted here that the paragraph is copied from their website. This constitutes a copyright violation, even if it did not read as advertising copy. It can not remain. I'm sorry. Please be aware that you are in violation of the conflict of interest guideline. I've reported your account to WP:UAA for blocking as your account is obviously named to support the company and is being used to represent the company. This is not compatible with Wikipedia policies. I strongly encourage you to create an account that does not represent a company, but just yourself. I would recommend not using your real name, though some people do. Further, if you do create another account, please still follow WP:COI, as regardless of the name of your account you must observe that guideline. If you have questions, please ask. I am happy to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Also, slander is not slander if it is true. The passage currently in the article, that you are attempting to review, is sourced to a local news station article on the matter [4]. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Slander is slander when it's not true. A settled lawsuit is much different than what this said "The restaurant served a customer too much and let him get behind the wheel causing the accident" The facts of the case show the guy drank and 3 other places prior to going to Hofbrauhaus, the insurance company settled. Just because it's printed in the paper or put on a news website doesn't make it fact. I choose that username because I thought I was putting what page I was referring to as the one to change. I've never used WIKI in this manner. I just don't see why the other locations on the page have info about the restaurant and this one only refers to a lawsuit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBH Pittsburgh (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed the section of the article to remove the causal connection between the restaurant serving the alcohol to the patron and the accident. However, the remainder of what is left is verifiable and accurate to the reliable source that reports on it. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Note that Wikipedia is not in the business of determining what is true and not true. We depend on external sources to support passages likely to be disputed. That has been done in this case. With the text that is remaining, there may be an issue of undue weight. I will look into this but make no promises about what I can do to improve the section. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Ok I've added something at least (diff), but could use some help. I'm looking at [5] and [6] but do not know if we are talking about two locations or one, and the details thereof. Help? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Also, can I get you to put in a username request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The link to the lawsuit makes no sense. Every business in this country and abroad has been sued, is that what WIKI is for? If that's the case, you might as well add a BUNCH of facts about all sides of the suit instead of 1 side of this because what's listed on there is not close to accurate and the company didn't settle the lawsuit, the insurance company did. This entry was made by a person looking to put negative info out there about the restaurant. They told us they were doing to plaster it everywhere. The Cleveland location hasn't even broken ground yet and from what I'm told might not happen, I'm not sure who submitted that

If you want some info on the restaurant similar to what you have on the others you can use this. "Hofbrauhaus Pittsburgh is the 3rd location to open in the US modeled after the Munich Hofbrauhaus. They have an on-site brewery and serve 5 craft biers per month. The bier is brewed under the same guidelines as it is in Munich. It's located on minutes from downtown Pittsburgh in the Southside works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBH Pittsburgh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for working with me. I appreciate you taking the time.
• I'm not going to comment further on the lawsuit part right now; I'm going to see about getting input from others on this. I do know that removing sourced commentary is generally frowned upon. Since this is sourced, and is now accurate, I am loath to remove it straight out.
• As to the copy you'd like to add, it is certainly better than the copy/paste from the website. But, it still needs help. I would suggest something like this "Hofbräuhaus Pittsburgh is the 3rd location to open in the US. It is modeled after the Munich Hofbräuhaus. The location has an on-site brewery and serves five craft biers per month. The bier is brewed under the same guidelines as it is in Munich." I removed the last sentence as being advertising-like copy. I separated the sentence about location and modeling. It's unclear if it is the third location to open that is modeled after the Munich location or if it is the third location period.
• I've asked for a delay at WP:UAA regarding your account Thank you for placing the username request. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Undue_weight_at_Hofbr.C3.A4uhaus.23Hofbr.C3.A4uhaus_Pittsburgh. Feel free to comment there. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For this edit. Much appreciated. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly! I noticed it was missing when I went to set up a vandal report for Tenorsaxattack (talk · contribs) (who hasn't violated the final warning yet). I don't know how/when it got removed. Maybe that's something HBC AIV helperbot7 should look for? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It was a new editor, I think 24 edits as of yet, honest mistake while reporting. Having HBC AIV helperbot(s) look for it would be rather helpful. And while yes, the final line has not been crossed after the level 4 warning, clearly, one who comments that much about fapping in article space, is certainly headed in that direction. If you take exception to my block, I am happy to discuss it further, if you would like.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Not at all. It was obviously a vandalism only account. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • It seems that AIV is clerked by helperbot 7 and 11 (maybe more) which are operated by different people. I will make the suggestion at one of their talk pages. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks dude, I like your name too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parry Mecium (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

PMCpropertygroupwiki

Reference PMCpropertygroupwiki, there is an administrator, NawlinWiki whose username also contains the word Wiki. -- SAMI  ^talk 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to know whether you have pointed towards PMCpropertygroup or wiki.  SAMI  ^talk 21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I posted to User talk:PMCpropertygroupwiki due to its creation of an article (2121 Market Street) for a property in Philadelphia, and that a property group under that name exists in Philadelphia. They have a conflict of interest, and their username violates WP:ISU. {{uw-coi-username}} is a standard template for such situations. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Opera Coast article

Regarding my new contribution for Opera Coast, the text was not 100% objective. I tried to make more wiki-like, so I will remove the advertisement tag at the top of the page. I would appreciate if you write your comments in the talk page. I hope the page is adequate now. Danesh Daroui (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• It needs secondary sources, and I am wondering about its general notability? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you offer guidance?

I am really tired of Miss Cunnilingus expert. I am a biological, heterosexual female, and I like oral sex, with men, getting and giving. I have first-hand experience, AND I worked for the Arizona Dept of Health Services, in women's and children's services (admittedly, as a statistician). I am tired of fly3r22 and her rude attitude to me, and others. She claims that only women have genitalia that might smell distasteful! She said that she is of the understanding that male genitalia are entirely odorless! She keeps accusing me of having heterosexually biased attitudes, but she is the one who is describing cunnilingus as some scary, bizarre ritualistic act that can cause physical harm to the person performing it.

Look at this edit history. I would call it possessive. And then she attacks me on other articles, e.g. here, auto-cunnilingus talk, part 2, that has never been documented, even once, in medical history or otherwise!

Or should I just shut up and not bother, because she has her group-y adulation fans? --FeralOink (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I recommend you raise the issue at WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You are so prompt! She is very confrontational, and I'm scared of her brother. He is like an Erinye. Will they humiliate me at AN/I? Am I being hypersensitive? I'm sorry. --FeralOink (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• If there is something actionable, the administrators on WP:AN/I will take action. Forgive me, I do not know what I have to do with this or why you are seeking me out? I am not an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

QR Code

Ha! Well played... But if you must know, I have a reader on my phone. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for retrieval of previous information

Sir, on Bhupinder Singh Hooda with lot of effort a person edits and removal of previous information on request will discourage the other and anyone can give color to their pages as they wish you had removed the contents and I request you to keep the same on the page as American President case of Monika Levenski was made public and no one can remove when the source is authentic and reliable as you mentioned his page.Rajsector3 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message. I referred this issue to WP:AN/I, where it was handled by another editor. The thread has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive842#Another_set_of_eyes_needed_at_Bhupinder_Singh_Hooda. You may wish to read that. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the harrasment?

Why do you keep undoing my edits. They are constructive I'm putting their nicknames in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfschunuiceffuhyddfchiuu (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 July 2014‎ (UTC)

• So you consider this edit constructive? How? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I take it you've never watched it before then, because if you had you would know I'm just describing it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewgyuhhedweuuehejd (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Note

Please note Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited.3F, the RFC you suggested I file. You warned this Recyclebikesforkids chap 1 minute after registration? Come on, man. –xeno^talk 15:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• It was a direct match for an organization in Little Rock, Arkansas. Please see their Facebook profile. The user acknowledged the connection in their (appropriate) request for username change. Xeno, the reality is we disagree on this issue. I'm quite happy to follow policy and/or guideline on this point. As I've noted before, policy and guideline are equivocal on this issue. There is room for both views. Should the RfC view in your favor, I'll be happy to follow that. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  very fair, thanks –xeno^talk 15:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Xeno (hoping that the automatic messaging thingy notifies you of this); I'm beginning to think that the RfC as structured is faulty. We have several issues at hand, and the RfC strikes me as not really addressing any of the points fairly. We have a variety of account types that are created here that could be problematic. I don't think a broad paintbrush principle can work for all cases. I think perhaps the RfC needs to be shutdown, and several new ones begun covering each significant case. As I see it, we have cases of (1) blatantly attacking/offensive usernames, (2) questionable usernames as attacking/offensive, (3) blatant corporate usernames, (4) questionable corporate names, (5) impersonation usernames. Perhaps there are others? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have time to reformulate the RfC like this, perhaps we should just let it run and then re-run another one if necessary. The changed wording still gives broad room for judgment, especially for e.g., a questionable attack username you'd rather warn than report to UAA.
• Sometimes I wish we would all just have numbered usernames. They're just an identifier for edits and they really have no 'promotional' value in themselves. It is the edits that matter, and if the username never makes a single edit the only one seeing it is people who patrol the user creation screen and it has as close to zero 'promotional value' as possible. I'd be interesting in your data on how many username warnings you've issued to 0 edit users who still remain 0 edits.
• This discussion reminds me that some years ago someone from some usability initiative took out all guidance about potentially 'inappropriate usernames' from the user creation screen. Perhaps that should go back in. –xeno^talk 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• On data; post initiation of RfC, I did two things...one, suspended my actions in warning corporate usernames and two, began recording and tracking usernames that I would have warned but for the suspension. I have 30 catalogued right now, but would need several thousand to be statistically relevant. So, not terribly motivated :( But, I'm tracking out of curiosity anyway. Two of the 30 ended up getting warned by others. One of them was blocked before they edited again, and the other had their username changed. 6 of them are still open and editing. 5 were blocked. 19 have not edited and remain open. I remind you this data is not statistically relevant. On the guidance; given that we have in excess of 103,000 promotional usernames that have been blocked, having SOMETHING to deter conflict of interest before it happens would indeed be useful. Assuming (a real stretch) that the above data were statistically relevant, 1/3rd of promotional accounts begin editing. That's a veritable flood of material (34000+ accounts editing) that is largely unusable and has to be removed from the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Xeno (is this working or you just happening to watch?) Case point; I collected another ten coi-username accounts today for data. One of them is actively editing mainspace. They are editing an article which has over 500 inbound links, less than 30 watchers, and a talk page that hasn't been edited in over a year. The article's been around since 2004, and has less than 500 edits total. It is an article on a company which we would never dream of getting rid of. However, the work that the very much biased editor is doing will require a very significant rewrite to be acceptable. They are actively hurting the article right now. The account's been active for about an hour now, and nobody has done anything with respect to this editor. This case is not isolated. You might able to discern what account this is from the information above. I would ask that you not do so to allow the data to remain intact. I will eventually correct the article myself. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Yes, the notification system is working) Thanks for the data. –xeno^talk 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Xeno, I took a look at the last 100 accounts that I sent a {{uw-coi-username}} warning to. In most, if not all, cases I gave these warnings prior to first edit. I didn't look specifically for that; I just don't have the time to do an absolutely thorough examination of each case. I also do not have access to deleted edits, so can not determine if the accounts which show no edits did in fact edit (though this is probably a small or non-existent subset). Of the 100 accounts, 54 have done editing of some kind. This suggests the 1/3rd approximation above is perhaps low. But, 100 data points is not much more statistically relevant than the above data set. However, in both cases it appears the share of promotional accounts that begin editing is significant. Also, taking another look at the 40 case data set above, 13 of 40 have edited. Of those 13, 8 remain open, unblocked. This _is_ a ridiculously small data set, so take this with a very large grain of salt; our systems for handling promotional accounts without warning them prior to editing seem weak. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• The RFC still has just over a week, but it seems clear that opinion on it is sufficiently divided that you can go ahead and continue warning users prior to their first edit at your discretion. Thanks for your input on the subject. –xeno^talk 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am content to let the RfC finish before continuing. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Udonis Haslem photo (?)

Hey, Hammer. Can you check the recent upload of this photo at Wikimedia Commons for potential copyright violation. The quality of the photo is extraordinarily good and the Commons documentation on the upload is extraordinarily, shall we say, light. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Lots of dead giveaways on this one. The editor had five other uploads before today that were copyright violations. He had another two plus the one you mention above that had yet to be tagged as copyright violations. Everything he's uploaded has been copyright violations. I've tagged the three remaining images that he has uploaded that have not been deleted and gave him a stern warning. Good find. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Too much time

Caught me .... -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Welcome back :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Suspect upload to Commons

H, usual suspect scenario . . . newly registered commons user, high quality digital photo that is almost too good to be amateur work, name of uploader/license grantor and name of photographer in camera metadata don't match. Please have a looksee: File:Percy Harvin Playoffs Rumors Seahawks.jpg.

Now being used on Percy Harvin page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Tagged as copyvio of [7]. He has six other uploads that I am investigating as well. Soooo many people think that if they find something on the Internet it is theirs to do with as they like. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Hammer. Actually, when I repeatedly see newly registered accounts uploading non-free images to Commons with bogus free-image licenses -- not exactly newbie behavior -- it becomes apparent that this is some sort of a game for repeat offenders. I only have about 1400 articles on my primary watch list; I can only imagine how bad the problem is project wide. Oddly, though, this pattern of activity seems to mostly target current athletes or other celebrities; I don't see many non-free images of other notable persons, especially historical persons. Says something about the people playing the game, I suppose. I hope you don't mind if I refer these problems to you periodically. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not at all. Happy to provide service. All of the image uploads of this user have been tagged as copyright violations and I left him a warning. And on the game continues.
• The underlying problem here is really systemic. As the editor base continues to decline, the manpower available to police such additions of images and other content to the various wikimedia projects becomes incapable of handling the influx. This language edition of Wikipedia will eventually be overwhelmed. The model for how things are policed here is woefully obsolete.
• Case point; for years now we have been tagging and removing images of Kim Jong-un from that article due to him being alive, and our non-acceptance of non-free images of living people in almost all cases. The images uploaded and claimed to be 'free' are always non-free. Frustratingly, the images keep repeating, and we keep having repeated work to police the same thing over and over again.
• I can imagine a different scenario; a bot that is capable of looking at a case book, comparing an upload to existing cases of known non-free images (from prior decisions), and declaring the image quarantined and not eligible to be used until reviewed by a human. Google images is capable of comparing images and finding results that match. I'm sure we can do the same. This would dramatically reduce the workload of the (diminishing base of) editors who police images. Another potential bot; a bot that analyzes the metadata and finds copyright information within it. If it does, the image is again quarantined. Sadly, these bots will not come to pass, and Wikipedia will eventually be overwhelmed by this and similar problems.
• I commented on the life cycle of organizations here, back in 2011. Three years later, and the "top priority" the Board chose of reversing the downward trend of editors has failed to produce any fruit. They can't stop it. They must adapt. To date, they haven't. I hold no hope they will. The recent dust-up over the media viewer lays bare the immaturity of the WMF as a body. They are grossly incompetent...and worse, defend their incompetence. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tvsdesign

The article is basically an excuse for a link to their website. Feel free to write an actual article if this is in fact a notable company. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I said in my edit summary that I was working on the article. I've just uploaded the company logo to Commons, and was beginning the first edit to the article to improve it. The deletion was far, far too fast and inherently hostile to a new user trying to begin their editing here. Please, in the future, a few minutes wouldn't hurt. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• NawlinWiki; I note that the article had four inbound links that could be readily seen [8]. There's another that could not be readily seen (now a redirect I made). I'm not an administrator, but perhaps before deletion a check through of "what links here" might be a good idea to be certain the company is not notable. If there are inbound links, perhaps a pause before deletion is in order, while discussing with the creator.
• I've recreated the article, and fleshed it out enough to be a stub. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Full circle: back to the beginning

H, it has been strongly suggested that I need to get involved in NFCC enforcement because (a) I have a legal background, and (b) we have become increasingly short-handed. Would you mind providing a short list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines I should be reading as I try to deepen my knowledge and understanding in the area? I am going to have plenty of questions, too . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• You have questions for me? Hrm. Well, I have a question for you. Are you insane? :) NFCC enforcement is (a) permanently short handed, (b) futile, (c) causes incredible amounts of grief for the person who does it and (d) is usually very disruptive to the project. Lots of things generate acrimony on this project, to be sure. NFCC is certainly one of the top five most contentious areas on the project. Despite all the tension, all the threads on various noticeboards going after this and that person who is abusing NFCC, etc. etc. etc., our situation vis-a-vis is worse today than it was even just a year ago, and far worse than a few years ago. We now have inexcess of half a million non-free images on this 'free' project. Any notion that the project is 'free' is laughable in the extreme. While our article creation is tailing off, the increase in non-free photos has not. I.e., the ratio of non-free content to articles is getting larger, and larger and larger. I tell you this not to gripe but to make sure you fully understand the ramifications of what it is you are volunteering to do.
• Understand that your legal experience will have little use in NFCC enforcement. Far more important is a devotion to the concept of the free culture movement, a strong understanding of the clear delineation between free as in libre and free as in gratis. Wikipedia:Veganism parable is an excellent essay on the subject that serves as a primer to understanding this highly contentious issue. From there, a visit to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement would be good. Long, but gives a good understanding of how contentious this is and why so much of NFCC fails on contact with reality. Another good primer is Wikipedia:Fair use overuse.
• If you would like to use your legal talents, then you can explain to me how this image of the Burj Khalifa is considered free in the U.S. when both the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates are signatories to the Berne Convention, and there is no freedom of panorama in the UAE for architectural works. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's what I was told, H. I know it can be contentious -- from personal experience. And I see you're already asking the hard questions; remember, I'm a commercial real estate and corporate lawyer, not an IP attorney. That having been said, like any set of rules, WP NFCC policy has its own logic and precedents, even if we're not relying on U.S. copyright law. I've already taken on the informal task of explaining NFCC to other sports editors when they demand to insert copyrighted team images into articles where they don't belong. So, I think I would start small in my existing editing areas and expand outward with time. Accordingly, I'm contemplating a new user name --

• Dirthammer!
• Martel des Images!
• Martel du Loi!
• Lawhammer!

What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Having now talked to the Foundation at the recent Wikimania in London, I think some of the tone of Wikipedia:Fair use overuse is seriously misleading. Statements like "The focus of both of these items of policy is to limit the use of copyrighted, fair use imagery as much as possible" simply do not correspond to the Foundation and its staffers' understanding of policy.

Instead, their point of view reads words like "minimal" in the policy in the same sense they are read in U.S. fair use case law -- viz. no more than needed for the purpose identified -- a significantly less hard line. The principal concerns are that images must be legal for use on WP, per US law; images must be legal for our major commercial bulk reusers, who cannot rely on Wikipedia's non-profit, educational, and charitable status to pass the famous 4 factor tests of US fair-use law; and images should not overbalance readers perceptions of WP -- it's our free content we are about, the role of fair use images on any particular article should be ancillary to that. Jheald (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• One other thing: setting yourself up as an "enforcer" or a "hammer" is absolutely toxic, to WP's community spirit as a whole, and to people's attitude to the policy (and, ultimately, to your own effectiveness). What is needed is to go out of your way to project calmness, reasonableness, open-mindedness, an ability to see both sides and a desire to search for solutions that work for everybody. Techdirt had an interesting piece yesterday on the UK police code of "policing by consent", and the historic tradition that "the police are the public and that the public are the police". Not a bad read. Jheald (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)