User talk:Hammersoft

Old content prior to 1 April 2011

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)[reply]

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

Ditto. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --trevj (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please don't edit my userpage without my permission.

It would be appreciated, thank you.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I seems you have started to harrass me to, I shut off Dashbot because it was removing an image FEATURED on an article page, obviously in compliance with all wikipedia policies...
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff? Dashbot is normally correct. β^_command 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:NFLISTS 3a. only refers to if there is a substitute image that takes up less space I.E. if there was a picture with all books in a series in one picture. There is no "tabular format" phrase in which you speak of in that document. In fact, the tabular format was only used in the article to keep the paragraphs and images from running into each other in a way that would no longer make sense.

The publications section is not a bibliography either. It gives an overview of IUPAC as a publishing company and talks about non book works as well. These books are not merely listed as would be in a bibliography, the context of study is included. This makes the paragraph about the books and allows for free use images to be used.

"The general practice is that if (X) is notable enough (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)) to have its own article, then it is certainly notable enough to have a cover of the book on that article. In that vein, Placing 20 covers on an aggregate article violates WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"

Not true. The books are used directly in context as to who they should be used by; aka a publishing rationale. There is no reason for one to assume that a book does not fit notability requirements just because it doesn't have a page. In their respective fields, these books are extremely notable. These books should have their own pages, they just haven't been made yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamakajakawaka (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please centralize this discussion? Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep it here. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Ok, understand that we do not need a book cover of every book published by this entity in order to understand the topic of the article. Whether you want to call it a biography or not, it is a list of books produced by the company. There is minimal commentary on each book. Further, three of the images contain elements from another copyright holder source, amazon.com. There's no rationale to justify that this article needs to show the covers came from Amazon, and this infringes on Amazon's rights. Lastly, what makes this article unique? How is it different from almost all other articles that we should allow a special exception for it that would permit this mass overuse of non-free media in order to understand the topic of the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the amazon ones and they will be taken care of. If you look, they were not added by me. I will take care of them. I honestly forgot about those in the shuffle of things. However, I do not see the special exception you talk about even being needed. Even if it is a section with a list of books, there is not just books there. It is an article about their publications at large. It is necessary for people studying the fields to know what the book looks like in order to identify it. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a separate article for a given book, I could see it. But here, we have but two or three sentences per book. There's almost nothing. Again, we don't need 20 covers for people to understand the organization. This is an article about the organization, not its publications. My point in exceptions is that you're asking us to accept this usage when such usage isn't supported elsewhere. Why? What makes this article special such that it has to have these book covers? I went through many other articles in Category:Chemistry organizations, Category:International scientific organizations and Category:Standards organizations. I couldn't find any other article attempting what this article is currently attempting. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than two to three sentences per book. Could you give me an example of such precedent? I have never seen pictures kept off a page because there are too many.Salamakajakawaka (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sentences per book averages less than 5. Yes, I counted. 11 of them have 2 or 3. Precedent? Look at the three categories I pointed you to. Can you find any other article in those categories attempting what you're attempting by including the images? We frequently keep non-free images off of pages because of too much use. That's why we have Template:Non-free. That's why less than .1% of our articles have more than four images on them. What makes this article special such that it should be in this less than .1% when similar articles in the categories I noted aren't? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also refer you to this, where User:Ruhrfisch notes "The images of the various books are all copyrighted and thus must be justified under WP:FAIR USE to be included here. The official policy here is WP:NFCC and I fail to see how any of the book covers shown meet the policy. The logo of IUPAC is OK, the logo for the International Year of Chemistry is probably OK, but how does seeing the book covers increase the reader's understanding of IUPAC?" --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose ruhrfish has a point. I will remove them as seeing that there is a general concensus against me that the pictures don't add to the content of the article as much as I thought they would. They don't break any rules, but it would work well in the refinement process of making the article more concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamakajakawaka (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pure Appl. Chem. cover.jpg

I suppose standards change over time. That the image has survived three or four years shows that that statement used to be good enough. I'll tweak it a little, but I won't really care if you IFD it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they do change. WP:FURG is helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Team

With reference to Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Golden Team images that I nominated here, do you know what code to add to the other images I added under the same nomination so that each image has a deletion notice. Unfortunately we don't have a group nomination process like they have on the commons. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all of them for you. I also added nrd to all of them, as they were all missing fair use rationales. I recall there being a method to nominate several images together, but I don't remember how. What I did in this case was subst'ing the original, copying the resulting code, and then supplanting the text that pulls the filename with a hard address to the deletion discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I wanted to do but had no idea how. I must study what you actually did. Thanks for the fast response. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Glad to be of assistance. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenő Buzánszky.jpg and File:Gyula Grosics.jpg are also replaceable fair use; these two people are still alive. I've tagged them as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed that. You are good! ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo tag

Hello, man! Please, help me. Regarding this (Here)

This logo i created from logo found here (Informator o radu) but this is logo that is used by Heritage Institute of Serbia, and it is Serbian motive from medieval times. I supose that it is derive work, but how should i tag it? :) Thanks in advance! :) --Tadija^speaks 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even begin to read that source :) But, if that is the source of this version of the image, you should note it on the image description page. Also, again because I can't read the source, I can't verify if the image is in fact from medieval times. If it is, it's way out of copyright and should be marked with Template:PD-old. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i will tag it, and find source about it, and place it on talk page. Also, i created this version, original is just white. Thanks! --Tadija^speaks 20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating this version by changing the colors creates a derivative version, and is not free of copyright because you release your changes. It still has copyright from the original source, if it is copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's old. It is from Miroslav Gospels, so it is out of copyright about 700 years ago! :) :) Thanks, anyway man. You are helpful. -Tadija^speaks 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Hammersoft (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FU/NFC

I just want to say I appreciate your work; you do a thankless job and get abuse hurled at you from the community. I mean, what makes you so committed to the project after all they do to you?

On one of your userboxes it used to say wikipedia has the largest collection of copyright images on the internet. Does this mean you think wikipedia's Fair use policy is silly and should be changed to that of wikias?

Kind regards --Drogonov 07:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, rather the opposite. The Wikias are actually dancing a thinner line. They are for profit, and some of them contain enormous quantities of non-free imagery. I think it's a matter of time before a very serious lawsuit is filed against one or more of them. As for this project, it's pretty simple. We are a free-content resource. This makes good reading, as well as as Wikipedia:Veganism parable itself. The idea that we can be a free content resource, while at the same time being the largest repository of non-free media on the Internet I find to be both absolutely hysterical and also incredibly depressing.
Did you know that we have more than 100,000 album covers? The people attempting to defend our purpose here lost that battle. Identification alone is sufficient to include an album cover. At this discussion, we're seeing just the beginning of the flood of non-free sound clips. We're at just under 5,000 files there, but it's going to explode. Virtually all of these clips and album covers have virtually no notability to sustain their existence here. They're here for one reason, and one reason alone; identification. That level of acceptance criteria permits a flood of non-free media to exist here. It's like someone standing in the middle of the onrush of water during a massive dam break, and that person saying "Could you hand me a wrench please?"
Most people in the world do not understand the free culture movement. I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the editors here have never even heard of it. Combine this with the reality that most people either don't understand copyright law (ex; "I found it on the Internet, so it's ok to use", "It's free advertising for them", etc.) or simply don't care about copyright law (witness the huge numbers of people that have used various pirating schemes). We're left with a body of editors that are largely opposed to WP:NFCC policy.
The middle ground approach that is being taken here is unsustainable. We now have over 357,000 non-free images. It grows by ~100 per day. That's not much per day, but it's inexorable. The amount of non-free media as a ratio to the number of articles is getting worse. The current ratio is 1:9. But the pace of non-free uploads to article creation is 1:6.3. Day by day, edit by edit, we're losing ground on our free content mission. It's like a moving continent. We can be aware that it is moving, and we know that someday it's going to collide with another continent, but there's not thing one we can do about it even though we know it's going to cause catastrophe. Except, we're not dealing with geologic time here. Eventually, the burden of non-free media will cause a backlash or the project will divest itself from its free content mission.
As to why I keep on in the face of so much animosity; I'm mature enough to recognize that it is quite absurd to place any weight in the personal opinions others here have of me when I have never met any of these people and never will. Their relevance to my life is zero. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations

Thanks for catching the nonfree images on my userpage. I am aware of the policy, but was too busy being creative and having fun to be scrupulous about copyright. Another reason why free culture is important, I guess. Anyways, I find your response to Drogonov above thoughtful and clear. I wish you would put it on your user page, instead of the chaotic mess that's on there now. I also wish you wouldn't use the <div> tag to wreck havoc on the formatting of your user page. Someone less savvy about computers might worry that their browser is malfunctioning or that Wikipedia has been compromised.

All that said, however --

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your highly valuable and vigilant enforcement of WP:FU. Ori.livneh (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah crap! Now I have to update my "only one barnstar" userbox. Dagnabit! muttermuttermutter ;) Yes, I know my userpage is a chaotic mess. I just don't have the genes for something more artistic, and a purpose statement extracted from my response to Dragonov above would be, well, bland. It might do to have the WP:UP policy more restrictive about what you can and can't do vis-a-vis div tags on your userpage, but they're all the rage right now. You're welcome to make the page pettier if you like, just maintain the essence of what I say there. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an exploratory question

I would like to explore an area with you concerning Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BQZip01.

I myself had not realized the existence of the issues involving free-use/fair-use of images. In reading through the WikiProject Fair Use pages, I see Wikipedia_talk:NFC "This project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to monitor and reduce non-free content on Wikipedia, prevent copyright infringement, and further our free content mission." I understand this to mean activities in the areas of removing copyrighted material, creating truly free-use images and reducing fair-usage images.

I believe your passion (..."there are plenty of people who do not like me. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to be liked or disliked,"...) brings you close to WP:DRAMA in issues concerning the third activity (reducing fair-use images).

So, I would like to ask you a question: rather than actively deleting fair-use images, would you be willing to work with tags ( like {{fairusereview}}, {{fairusereduce}}, {{fairusereplace}}) for a period of time? Wikipedia would still benefit from your judgement and you would be at a greater distance from emotional trauma.

Best regards, jmcw (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Template:Non-free review; I already use it on occasion where appropriate, to help determine if the use of the image is appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm already involved at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review, where I'm involved in ~20% of the conversations.
To Template:Fairusereduce; I'm not involved in anyway with that effort, and do not have much interest in size issues of images.
To Template:Fairusereplace; I'm already extensively using this tag. I periodically spend some time perusing this list of Biographies of Living People for fair use images being used for depiction purposes and remove them (ex: [1][2][3]. That's a never ending task. That list has always been over 5000 since I asked Betacommand to make it. There's a large number of false positives, but 1/3 to 1/2 are not.
As to deleting images: I'm not splitting hairs here, but to be clear; I am not an administrator (nor do I have any wish to demote myself to one). I can not delete anything. I do mark things, using templates (such as your suggested Template:Fairusereplace) which make images subject to deletion by a reviewing administrator. In the past, I haven't always done the best job to notify uploaders of images when I tag with with Template:Orfud, Template:Nrd, Template:Nld, etc. but over the last few months I've taken greater pains to notify uploaders (ex: [4][5][6]). BQZip01 maintains that tagging images with problem tags and notifying uploaders is disruptive behavior on my part. It isn't, and I'll quite happily defend myself before other editors on this point should he raise it again. I also note that I've come across several other editors who have performed similar edits (and BQZip01 was aware of them), and BQZip01 has not taken them to task about it...only me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I did not express myself well with the phrase 'delete images'. [7] or [8] is what I meant :'remove images from articles' would be better expressed. jmcw (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should I halt this behavior? In the Portal:Peshawar/Selected article/12 case, it's a blatant violation of WP:NFCC #9. There's no wiggle room on that. In the Trúc Bạch Lake, it's an editorial decision, just like thousands of other editors here make. It's a pretty blatant case too, though I grant not as cut and dried. It's covered by Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 #5, and is in the same vein as debates about the flag raising on Iwo Jima image, and the Afghan Girl image. This is simple overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I make no argument that this behavior is incorrect. It is the passion and ever nearness to WP:DRAMA that I comment. Remember, there are other editors who can do this work. You could work in other areas of Wikipedia. jmcw (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but I fail to see any drama in my removal of a fair use file from a portal, or a fair use file relating to two sentences. If there's drama, it's in the hands of the people who oppose the WP:NFCC policy. If you want testament of that, have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content, specifically current items #5, #6, and #8. I've been thanked by people for my work, and ArbCom itself even recognizes that WP:NFCC enforcement is an area where people are routinely attacked. Can you point to something in particular that is problematic about my edits as opposed to WP:NFCC enforcement in general? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are getting somewhere. I believe that your work is very valuable, that your behavior is correct and that the people who attack you for enforcing WP:NFCC are frustrated (and their behavior is not the best of Wikipedia). From this discussion, I begin to think the issues lie in what you could additionally be doing, to be a better Wikipedian.

I will rephrase my original question: for a period of time, would you be willing to modify your work habits from a) remove image from article b) comment to the user and c) let the orphan bot delete the image to A) comment to user, B) respond to user, C) remove image from article and D) let the orphan bot delete the image. Your good work would continue, the frustration of others could be reduced and the others might learn about free-usage concepts.

Thank you for your patience! jmcw (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not understanding where what I am doing is creating drama. I think if you feel this is the process we should be following, let's start a discussion at WT:NFC. Your idea may generate more drama, it might generate less. I would be curious to see how the larger body of editors who engage in this sort of work would respond. Personally, I would find it very difficult to follow, if not impossible. I mark things as I find them. In the structure you recommend, I'd have to keep track of everything I found that needed attention so I could return to it at a later date. This would at least double my effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This conversation is not about changing the way all the editors work. My interest here is in reducing the stress around your work while keeping the good quality. My questions come down to "would you be willing to do a bit more work to improve the quality of wiki life?" jmcw (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I remain confused. My stress level is low. It usually is around here. You're stating what I am doing is proper. So where's the issue? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a related case; User:Shaakunthala/Asia-Pacific Telecentre Network. Three times DashBOT removed a non-free image from the file. Three times, the user restored it. That's troubling. Worse, DashBOT was shutdown by the editor, even though DashBOT was acting properly. He also removed an orphaned notice from the image, even though the image remained orphaned. I've undone all his actions in this regard and left an explanation message on his talk page. He's a new editor, and he doesn't understand yet. I've explained the situation to him at User_talk:Shaakunthala. If you think there's something I could do to improve what I did, I'm open to suggestions. DashBOT performs about a dozen or so of these removals a day now. Since 2 February 2010, DashBOT has been shut down 16 times. Not once was the shut down for an actual failure. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, you and DashBOT are correct and the inexperienced user is wrong. Now try seeing it from the newbies perspective: something came down out of the sky and blasted his work. No comments on his talk page - no welcome message. This thing kept doing it without an explanation ( or an explanation he did not understand.) So he shut it off - (from his perspective) why not? You made a good-faith effort to get an exception - commendable. At the end of the process, you write the first message to his talk page explaining what has happened. The problem is solved but do you think his frustration is gone? jmcw (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm curious as to why there were no messages on his talk page. DashBOT usually handles that. I'm still investigating. I don't think his frustration is gone. But, in my opinion the frustration isn't caused by what I'm doing; it is in line with policy and it is how multiple, multiple editors around here handle things. I think the frustration is caused when we encourage editors to start articles in their userspace in a sandbox, and then we rip content out of it. I'm still very much of the opinion that we should be able to tag developmental articles for a time period of 14 days or even 30 days, to allow an editor to develop the article unfettered by bots, etc. Mind you, DashBOT isn't the only bot out there that does things easily construed as disruptive to a new editor trying to work on a developmental article. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found out what happened. See User_talk:Tim1357#Improvement_for_DASHBot_NFCC_image_removal_task. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to sidebar here a bit; I don't write policies here, though I'm sometimes involved in discussions about rephrasing them. I enforce policies in concert with best practices being conducted by people doing similar work. There are many times when I disagree with a policy, or the best practice that enforces it. I don't act on my disagreements. I act on what is best practice and policy. Less abstractly; I don't like the policy that comes down hard on developmental articles. But, an editor shutting down DashBOT is (innocently) causing more serious problems. I explained the situation to him, and we move on. The editor has now had multiple opportunities to educate themselves about our policies. This is how it is done. If how we are doing it results in frequently frustrated users, then we need to develop a better "how it is done". I tried to do that, and failed. Shutting down my edits in this arena isn't going to fix the problem since my edits aren't the problem; the process is the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I wanted to see if I could bring you to a new perspective about your role here but I don't want to get on your nerves<g>. Its been nice chatting and I've learned a bit about fair-use/free-use images - thanks! jmcw (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not getting on my nerves. Very few people do, and certainly not for engaging in a cordial conversation. I think this conversation is interesting, and I wouldn't mind pursuing it further into a philosophical discussion at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!!

Hello there...i have a question..asking you because you seem to know about copyright for images...I am the portal guy!!! I have uploaded File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946 crop.jpg that is a crop of File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946.jpg. My question is this allowed here -->Portal:Ottawa/Selected biography/5, I am from Canada and this is in the public domain here....but since wiki is hosted in the USA can i use it??? or even crop it like i did??? ....Moxy (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncertain. Commons hasn't made up its mind how it wants to handle such images. I think if Commons is hosting the image, you'll be ok. But, your derivative work is hosted here. I'd move it to Commons. I see it's on the 5 page now, but I'd upload the image to Commons and make sure 5 points to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done ..File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946 crop.jpg ........... :-)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for taking the time to inform me in such a good manner ...Moxy (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free use images

The rules for using images seem a bit esoteric here on Wikipedia. For example, you have said that the use of the Twins cap logo is not to be used in userboxes, yet I notice that you have said nothing about the New York Yankee's cap logo used on User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises Yankees. Please explain the difference to me because I don't see it. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Twins cap logo is a non-free image. The Yankees image is free. It's that simple. Look for the red "C" on any given image's description page. If it has it, it's non-free. That's the case with the Twins cap logo. Non-free images can not appear on userpages, such as userboxes, our non-free content criteria #9. Hope that helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that cleared it up. I appreciate your help! Rapier (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Helping Hand

this + this = Meatpuppet. Garanam (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPMorgan Chase

Please explain where in the fair use policy is there a restriction on using an image in more than one place. There is a one article minimum not a one article maximum. I don't think you can say it is overuse for the logo to appear on the main article and the article of the company that acquired the business. These are historical logos of now defunct organizations and are there to better identify the historical constituent businesses. Given the fact that each historical entity has a sub section it seems appropriate to have the logos there as well as any main article about the defunct business. They have been there for two years without issue so if you are going to remove them I would like a better explanation. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The basic underlying principle is minimal usage, as listed at WP:NFCC #3. We don't want to use fair use images unless we really must do so. In this case, we have a section referencing multiple other entities for which there exist main articles about those entities. The fair use images exist on those other main articles, which obviates the need to replicate the images on the JPMorgan Chase article. If we have a logo of a company, we do not use the logo of the company on every article where the company is mentioned. Instead, we point to the article about the company. Point #5 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 covers this as well. You might wish to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:NFC#JPMorgan_Chase.23Acquisition_history. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you do this

I checked your contributions. You have not made a single edit where you are improving a article. You patrol articles for images you think are copyrighted or look copyrighted and remove them and/or tag them for deletion. And this is good but according to wikipedia policy userpages are supposed to only be edited by the user unless it is offensive, in which case the user is supposed to ask the user to remove the image/content. You just go to peoples userpage and delete what you don't like claiming it violates policy. Some images do but this one is not one of them. The image I am using is from Memory Alpha. It to is under fair use because paramount pictures has star trek under copyright. The image, however, in a screen capture of voyager. This image is all over the place (google it) I don't know who originally released it but it is now public domain. See the links below for a few of them.

Here [9]

Here [10]

Here [11]

Here [12]

Here [13]

Here [14]

Here [15]

Here [16]

and of course here [17]

~~If you need anymore examples let me know. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Whether it exists in all those places or not is immaterial. It doesn't affect the copyright status of the image. The image is a screen shot of a copyrighted work, one that Paramount has not released rights to. This image being used on userpages does violate policy. It is clearly marked as a non-free image. As I've explained, the use of non-free images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted by our policy at WP:NFCC #9. There's no wiggle room on this. If the image is marked as copyrighted, it's not permitted to be used outside of the article namespace. In fact, we even have a bot running around doing some of these removals of non-free content from userpages. See User:DASHBot and the approval for this function. I think you're understanding of what is public domain is inaccurate. An image does not become public domain because it is published on the Internet in multiple places. In order for copyright to not exist on a work such as this, produced in the last 20 years, the rights holder must specifically release those rights. Paramount has not done so for its Voyager series and retains rights. Therefore, this screenshot is encumbered with rights that can not be waived by you, me, Memory Alpha, or any other site on the net. As for modifying your userpage without your permission, please be aware of Wikipedia:User_pages#Images. No warning to you or permission from you is necessary for myself, the bot, or any other person to remove policy violating content from your userpage. As to my editing history, I'm sorry you don't like it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me about Wikipedia:User_pages#Images. I did not know about this rule. I am very truly sorry for complaining about the changes you made to my page and for complaining that you flag articles with copyright violations. Doing what you do takes a lot of work and I am glad that someone likes to to this. I hope you will forgive me. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Quadrant has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Glad to be of help! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here i was just trolling (was about to take this page off my watchlist as all get added auto for me)...i was just reading what you said about a picture of a copyrighted image/logo ...Could i get you to look at this ' Hammer tell me if this is ok? ...PS your great!!Moxy (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France is of use, but seems partially equivocal. My gut feeling is no; taking a photograph of a copyrighted work does not transfer rights to the photographer. I'd take it to WP:PUF. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedra Branca photo

I raised a question about the photo. I see that you have tagged it.

I haven't researched it completely but my initial thoughts are that it is not good to claim fair use. The picture is nice, no question. However, the honest thing to do is to provide a link so people can go to the government website to see the photo. Don't you agree?

If the picture is removed, consider adding an external links section and a link to the photo. That would make Wikipedia informative as well as honest. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pedra_Branca.jpg

All we need to do is get a commercial sailor to snap a picture of the place. One of the world's busiest harbours is just a few miles away! I wonder if one of the thousands of people who pass by is a Wikipedian? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding an external link to the photo is helpful, and isn't common practice here. If we can't find or make a free alternative, then we host the non-free version under terms of U.S. fair use. If we can find or make an alternative, then we encourage that finding/creation. I've tagged the second image you noted, and updated the uploader's talk page. As to replaceability, given the sheer number (10s of thousands) of ships that go by this island and lighthouse every year, I'm sure that at least a few of them are Wikipedians. Singapore is arguably the busiest port in the world, depending on the metric used. Plus, there are more than 300 wikipedians in Singapore. All it takes is one of them to go on a boat out there and take a picture of the place. :) It is extremely rare to find a valid argument for a fair use image of a place if the place still exists as the article it is used on wishes to demonstrate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a link become a common practice? The current practice now is to try to find a free use photo or for a Wikipedian to take a photo. If that doesn't happen, a user steals the photo and cites fair use. We should steal things very cautiously and give a link if we can't honestly claim fair use (shouldn't just steal and make up a flimsy excuse). It does no harm if we link stuff. Although, schools discourage or prohibit citing Wikipedia but schools generally accept it if students use Wikipedia to help them start to find references. By providing links, we help them and help Wikipedia follow the highest standards of ethics.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an administrator? If that date passes, will you delete the offending picture? If not, how can you be certain it will be deleted? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not an administrator. I trust that Wikipedia policies and guidelines will be upheld, and the images will be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reason

I shut off Dashbot because it was removing a "non-free image" which was actualy in compliance with all wikipedia image policies and featured on an article page. I would very much like you to explain why I should have left an explanation when the bot's page says to just turn it off rather than contact the owner, as it is easier. Nowhere did it say "leave an explanation at this place" or the like. I shall continue to shut-off dashbot when it removes the image without explanation until you explain yourself.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe WP:NFCC #9. That policy says that we may only use non-free images in articles. I presume from your edits that you believe DASHBot is improperly removing File:Great Buddha Wonder.jpg from Talk:Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties? If so, DASHBot is acting correctly. That talk page is not an article. It's a talk page. We don't permit the display of non-free images on talk pages. The image is very clearly marked as a non-free image. Are you perhaps referring to some other removal that you feel DASHBot is performing incorrectly? If so, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, DASHBot is acting properly. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I'll have to check up on that. Expect to hear from me sometime this week.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

society

I would like to start a Wikipedia society of friendship. Just a desire for friendship and good editing are the requirements to join. Another condition of membership is that each member try to recruit 3 other members. I proposed that we call it the Wikipedia Club of Gloves. We are not socks, we condemn socks, we are gloves. We pledge to be nice to each other and do some good editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember running across this; Wikipedia:Esperanza. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?!

Why are the images on List of Ice Age characters being deleted, they are under the fairuse license. --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They only say not used in any articles because you made it that way! So I'm revertinga all of your edits. --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at WikiProject Star Trek

Hi Hammersoft, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Proposal and thought you might be interested. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (AQ)

Hi Hammersoft, I read your reply on B's talk page. I really don't want to the remainder of my time editing as anyones enemy. Therefore I propose to we shake hands and call it even. I admit, I made a mistake. I will remember to be more careful about the rules on images. On that same note, if and most likely when I make another mistake please don't bite me. No one is perfect, and neither are you or I. It may be my personal opinion, but I feel that your userpage comes across as rude. I might not have been as angry the first time I replied to your warnings had I not read your userpage. I was not trying to be rude, but after reading your page it made me feel like you don't care about other users. I don't think this is true, but that was how I felt. I apologies for being rude myself after reading your usepage and for making mistakes. I will do my best and be careful. I hope you can forgive me, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything for me to forgive you for; I'm not upset with you. There was a misunderstanding. I attempted to clarify it, and failed. That's why I went to WP:AN/I with it. I agree, everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes are fine; willful violations of policies are not. I think you're clear on the subject now, so I seriously doubt you'd willfully violate our WP:NFCC policy again. If you have questions about it, just let me know or ask around at WP:MCQ, WT:NFC, etc.
Regarding my userpage; I don't expect any one person to have the same reaction to it as everyone else. Some people have responded poorly to it. Some have found it funny. Short of not having a userpage at all, I can't control people's reactions to my userpage. Is it rude? To some people perhaps. Whether people respond to it in a negative way or a positive way, I honestly don't care. I'm not looking for approval or disapproval with my userpage. In fact, I'm not looking for approval or disapproval in anything I do on Wikipedia. In a sense you're right; I don't care about other users. Often "I don't care" carries a connotation of negativity. That's not the case here. It's neither negative or positive. It's not that I intentionally aim to anger people, or be rude. The areas in which I work often result in people being angry. That's the nature of humans; enforcing WP:NFCC usually involves removing what someone else has done. Very few people handle that well. Result; a much greater chance people will become insulting towards you. You did this yourself (relax; not trying to scrape scabs off wounds; just highlighting an example).
So, my userpage records some of the insults that have been levied at me. It also has a number of self deprecating entries. I was thinking last night that the table at the bottom of my userpage might come off as an attempt to keep track of the people I've annoyed. It isn't. If I religiously kept track of the insults people levied at me, it'd become a game for some people; 'how many times can I get on Hammersoft's stats table!' That's self defeating. The point of the table is to show that I've received insults across the board, and it hasn't stopped me. Though, bureaucrats and ArbCom have yet to insult me. I don't interact much with either group, so that's not surprising, but I don't suspect either of those groups to be any more immune to routine violations of WP:NPA. The work I do has remained more or less unchanged for a long time, yet the number of insults has gone down. I think the userpage has had its intended effect.
"Why don't you just report people who insult you?" you might ask. Good question. The reason is that civility on this project long ago got kicked to the curb and is routinely ignored. As one of my userboxes notes, I was once referred to as "the most ignorant and disrespectful editor" on Wikipedia. I reported it, and was told by an administrator that it wasn't a personal attack. This is not an isolated incident. I stopped reporting personal attacks, because WP:NPA isn't enforced. Look at the last 5000 blocks, only one had to do with civility and that was an arbitration enforcement. Yet, currently on WP:AN/I there's more than a dozen references to civility. Those might not be the best proxies for showing the lack of enforcement of WP:NPA, but it is telling. I was wasting my time trying to get enforcement of WP:NPA, and the personal attacks kept going on. So I kept improving my userpage, and it's had the effect I hoped for; less insults, at least so far as people casting such at me.
I hope that clarifies things with regards to my userpage. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, I sincerely hope that we will get along. I will remember to be more careful. Oh, which reminds me, do you know where I could find a image for the Rick Berman article. The one I found you told me violated policy, something about no fair use images of BLPs if free ones are available? Thanks you, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I did a quick scan of flickr.com and didn't find anything. It's possible there's no free licensed images currently available of him. But, he is alive. Our policies presume that if a person is alive, a free license image of the person could be created. We don't use non-free content until free content is available. So, we just don't use non-free images of living people for depiction purposes. There are exceptions; for example famous felons on death row. But, Rick Berman wouldn't qualify for such an exemption. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Something one of you may want to consider if you find something on flickr that is potentially useful but not freely licensed is contacting the author and asking him/her to re-license the image under an acceptable license. The photo of Frank Beamer came from a Flickr user who changed their license for us as was this image of Bobby Knight. This photo wasn't from flickr, but it was an iconic photo taken during the Virginia Tech massacre that was shown all over the news media. I contacted the kid who took it and got him to release it under the GFDL. Some people aren't interested in talking to us, but a lot of them will let us use their images under an acceptable license if we ask. WP:COPYREQ#How_to_ask_for_permission has more information on seeking permission. --B (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I make a image mistake like that, feel free to use WP:trout on me. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DuquesneDukes.png

In what way does File:DuquesneDukes.png not comply with WP:NFCC #10c? The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale has been provided. Please reply on my user page. — AlekJDS ^talk 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Might as well leave it off the Duquesne University article, I agree. Thanks for your work. — AlekJDS ^talk 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Hi Hammersoft, I created File:Galactic Quadrant.PNG today. Can you check to make sure I put it under the correct license? I think it is correct, but you know more on this than I. Thank you, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine! The original is PD, yours is PD derivative of it, all fine. Nicely done. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I ever have further questions on images, would it be ok for me to ask you? --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might not be the best, most available resource. But, if I'm around... --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting your input

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I don't have any knowledge of the material, so my input would be pretty limited beyond what I've already stated in the deletion discussion. Any further comments would probably be in the same line. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love your page

I actually came here from somewhere else I was looking, you rock! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Hammersoft (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

@A930913 and Gfr soldier-activist pic: 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this, and think that it's a ridiculous use of a template, and have nominated it for deletion. Meanwhile, I am tempted to blank it to avoid A93 enforcing their position in a content dispute by inappropriate means. Thoughts? :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering replacing the section of the article it is in with the contents of the template, but wanted to give A930913 an opportunity to discuss the situation. However, he appears intractable on the issue. I concur with you; this isn't how we use templates. I haven't read the discussions on the article to assess whether consensus exists for A930913's preferred version, but feel that's a moot point. This isn't how we resolve disputes. The template must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, subst+blank sounds good! ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry

Sorry about the screwup with the fair use images at Portal:Horses. I haven't messed with portal editing much, got a little image-crazy. Thanks for the policy link. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I can't take any credit for the poem it was all due to B00P (talk · contribs). I think that the majority of the increase in the population is due to immigration. We're the regional centre and have a large government presence. Also, in that time period the new health centre opened and brought in nurses and other technical staff, and some of those were married with children. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

But is it really non-free?

The non free screenshot license was something I just put on there because it seemed like the closest thing. That's a Wikia site. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So get permission from the Wikia site. They're not by default free license just because they are based on a Wiki framework. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started the Wiki and am basically the only editor so far. 74.36.5.22 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

xD User:Daniel Christensen/[[Talk:User:Daniel Christensen]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.5.22 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) As far as I know, Wikia sites are default CC-BY-SA licensed unless the specific site says otherwise. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the software being used to display the image, elements of which are visible? And the Consumer Reports logo? And Wikia logo? Etc., etc.,etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I made all of those :D. So wait how are there any screenshots on here at all if it's that picky? Like to the point of what browser was used. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most screenshots are non-free here. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rurouni Kenshin

Hi! I responded to Talk:List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters#Fair_use_images_and_this_article - I think the best solution would be trying to further "consolidate" characters into different images, i.e. find images with instances of multiple characters. The reason why there are so many images is because the author, Watsuki, describes the visual/physical appearance creation and conception details of so many of the characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the discussion, Jinnai proposed an ultimate list of images currently in the article that should be deleted. Would you mind going through and checking which ones need deletion and which ones do not? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can look, but I doubt I can be much help. I don't know the subject. I know the article suffered from too many such images. Determining which images need to go is more appropriate to the people who know the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona Rugby League - non-free image

Does an editor need to create a specific non-free media use rationale, so that the image can be used on the FC Barcelona Rugby League article?

Thanks for your help,

Ymron (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some guidance is available at WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much :)

Ymron (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up!

I see that many people are frustrated by your work, even though they may call it "blatant deletion", but I just wanted to let you know that you're doing a good thing. With 300,000 images wrongly licensed, I suppose it just takes one person to remind everyone of their wrongdoing. Keep your head high, my friend! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Admirals Logo

Thanks for clearing the stuff about copyright up, I wasn't quite sure. Half Price (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HS?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit comment is odd [18] as it is to an article, not to userspace William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my response, you can first apologize for the wrongful block you placed on me in December of 2008 [19]. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want I'll review the edits but otherwise I'll just forgo a response William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to reconsider you prior response, here's the diffs to refresh your memory:

My report to WP:AN3, in which I noted I had ceased editing the article, and was seeking assistance: [20]
Subsequent discussion on your talk page: [21]
Discussion at 2008Olympian's talk page (whom you also blocked, and later unblocked): [22]

I did and still feel it was highly inappropriate to be blocking the person (me) reporting the edit warring, most especially when that person said in the report that he had ceased editing the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel as I did at the time: being the person reporting the edit war gives you no priviledge. As an admin doing 3RR (note, BTW, I'm not an admin any more) I took a hard line on edit warring: if you broke 3RR without an excellent reason, you got blocked. I still think that is correct. OTOH I could perhaps have responded slightly more sensitively to your concerns. But that would not have affected the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not to be used punitively or to enforce a cool down period. They are to be used to prevent disruption. Since in my report, I had already noted that I had ceased editing the article (and in fact didn't edit it for months after that), there was no disruption to stop. The block was inappropriate on that grounds alone. Further, I was enforcing WP:NFCC policy, which is an explicit exception in cases of blatant fair use abuse as noted at WP:3RR. Two different administrators subsequently removed the images on grounds of violating WP:NFCC after 2008Olympian restored them. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two different administrators subsequently removed - yes, which was why you should not have broken 3RR to remove them. I'm sure there is a NFCC noticeboard for reporting such violations William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't break 3RR. I recognized there was an irreconcilable edit war going on, ceased it, and sought outside assistance. Instead of assistance, I got blocked when I was the one seeking assistance. It just made no sense. Since that report, I haven't touched that noticeboard because the apparent "assistance" I should expect is to be blocked. Your actions were arbitrary, capricious and lacked an understanding of the situation. There is no noticeboard for reporting NFCC violations. Regardless, I think we're done here. You didn't see the blatant error you made before, and you're not seeing it now. All I wanted was a recognition of the error you made. That apparently is impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, if I'm not mistaken the current year is 2010. How many pounds of flesh are you still seeking from 2008? Franamax (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero. All I was seeking was a recognition of the error. People seek recognition of errors decades after events happen. There's no difference here. I'm not looking to see him blocked, chastised by anyone, penalized in any way, stripped of any rights he holds, etc. I was just seeking recognition by him of the error. If that's "pounds of flesh" to you, so be it. I don't particularly care. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, the point to me is that you didn't previously seek out WMC to resolve your lasting sense of having been done wrong (which may well have occurred, I dunno). Instead you waited 'til WMC came along in normal-course editing on a (apparently) different topic and decided to hold him up for ransom. Can you clarify for me how that improves the encyclopedia? And I've come across lots of people who would sooner cut chunks off their own body rather than ever admit they were wrong. :( Franamax (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify for me how I am any less guilty of seeking a pound of flesh than you currently are in interjecting yourself into this conversation of which you were not party to, not invited to, and have no relation to? I think we're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Question

I have never uploaded an image to Wikipedia, so I am hoping that you might share some of your knowledge to help me. I am working on a crime-related article in which I would like to include a 1970s FBI wanted poster of a fugitive; however, the best image I can find is located on a private/non-governmental website. Am I allowed to use this image freely, not at all, or are there certain restrictions I must be aware of or comply with? Thanks! Keep up the good work! Location (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Don't you just love that answer? :) Seriously, it does. If the FBI wanted poster is in fact originally sourced from the FBI, them the private, non-governmental site does not have rights to it. The FBI does. The FBI, as an arm of the U.S. federal government, can not (usually) hold copyright on something they produce per (17 USC 105). If so, you can apply {{PD-USGov}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. It does appear to be a poster originally produced by the FBI, but I'll likely run it by you when I get to that part of the project. Thanks again! Location (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI regarding Cleveland Official Seal

I see that you've removed the image from the WikiProject Cleveland logo, (citing: Fair use images not permitted in templates, per WP:NFCC #9). I won't revert the edit, however, while I understand the citation you've presented, I don't think the actual file (er, image) description in this case was accurately listed within the 'fair use rationale' criteria by whomever uploaded it in the first place: this is a public seal of a city, without an equivalent (not unlike the official City of Chicago seal used in the WikiProjcet Chicago banner.

Here's the two images:

Like I said, there isn't really any difference in the status of the two seals -- they are both the official seal of a municipality, yet the Chicago seal gets a free pass due to it's file description (and I'd imagine the same criteria applies in the Cleveland seal case, but the uploader of said file perhpas didn't tick the right boxes). If you would (I'm a bit on the amateur side in the realm of file uploading and whatnot), please look into this for me. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the City of Chicago seal was adopted in 1905. It is public domain by way of age, being older than 1923. This is useful reading for that. Second, there's no evidence the seal of the City of Cleveland is in the public domain. Cursory research [23] shows it might have been adopted as recently as 2009. Without any assertion or reason to believe the image is in the public domain, we have to assume the image is copyrighted by the City of Cleveland. Therefore, it must be used under terms of WP:NFCC on Wikipedia. That policy prevents the use of non-free content on anything but actual encyclopedia articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, seriously? Under the usage rationale guidelines, I guess I understand the removal of the image from a template (which by 'I guess I understand' is to concur that I can read wiki-legalese, and I can see how it relates to what you've the pointed out)... but if the image is so sensitive that it can't be used anywhere else besides the main article for (I put it on the main page of the Cleveland Wiki-project attached to the city that said article is part of -- the intent wasn't to steal it for personal financial gain, which is ) then maybe the image itself shouldn't be permitted on Wikipedia... and interestingly, the exclusiveness of the usage guidelines in this case got me to thinking, so I went back and read a little closer.

I also suggest that you go back and look a little closer at the text of the City Code you cited, particularly subsections 105.1 and 105.3 -- the image in question is not the 'official seal' or the 'ceremonial seal' of the City of Cleveland named in the ordinance. If you don't believe me, I implore you to go back and read the description of the seal and you'll see what I mean. The seal we are talking about here is clearly a logo, and not not the official or ceremonial seal reserved for official documents only according to the ordinance. In short, the rule you're citing should be cross-exmined with the letter of the law you've presented. In short - the image we are talking about and the one that's described in the City Code (the same one the mayor keeps and/or is used for official documents... which echoes a similar code regarding the use of the Great Seal of Ohio) aren't the same. This is a logo, not the seal, for the City of Cleveland.

But forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo for a second, and get back to my original point -- it's just plain silliness that an image is uploaded to Wikipedia and then can't be used anywhere else -- it's either free or it's not. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be allowed on WP in the first place. You seem to be pretty up on all the fine print, so perhaps you can point that out to someone somewhere better than I.

Oh... and by the way, the text you deleted (when you rather aggressively deleted the thumbnail box instead of just the image) was mine and wasn't copyrighted. But I'll get over it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it's the "official" seal of Cleveland or not. It is apparently owned by the City of Cleveland, and that's all that is germane here. If we don't have evidence that they've released rights to it, then we have to assume it's copyrighted. Whether it's a logo, seal, favorite icon, decoration, Friday afternoon whimsy of an employee, it doesn't matter. If we have no evidence it's not available under a free license, we use it under terms of WP:NFCC here.
We have WP:NFCC because we do allow non-free content here, but on a limited basis. This is because our mission is to provide a free content resource. We limit non-free content as much as reasonable to further that mission.
Lastly, anything you contribute here is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. Anyone can change it without your permission to do so. I'm sorry if that offends you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. BTW, way to crawfish right past the salient point -- you might not care if it's the "official" seal of Cleveland or not, but, yet, you cited an ordinance that wasn't applicable to this specific logo. In any case, I've sent an email request to the 'Mayor's Office of Communications' seeking expressed written consent from the City of Cleveland to use it and am awaiting a reply.

And lastly, citing a wiki-rule to justify your actions doesn't excuse you for being rude -- a sarcastic apology isn't an apology. Not that courtesy matters these days. If you aren't a lawyer, you certainly missed your natural calling.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In seeking permission to use something, please be aware that getting permission to use on Wikipedia will not change the status quo here. Such permission is irrelevant. The logo would have to be released under a free license by the copyright owner in order to be used outside of actual articles here. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how to request release of copyrights to a specific work. I don't know what you asked that office, but if it was not a release under a free license reading that link will help you accomplish what you want. Any assertions of release under a free license will have to be confirmed by the m:OTRS team.
As for supposedly sarcastic apologies, I made no sarcastic apologies. I am sorry if someone else editing your work offends you, and that is sincere. If you have any other accusations regarding my conduct, you may wish to bring them to an administrators attention at this noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try helping instead of just stomping on someone's work.

I was trying to learn to write Wikipedia articles, but the lack of tact that you used when you left your last message is enough to make me delete my work and leave Wikipedia for good. I don't know all of the rules. You could have suggested alternatives. This makes me think that your intention is just to "put people in their place" NOT make Wikipedia a better resource. Miaettia (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discerning my intentions from a one paragraph posting I made to your talk page is fraught with problems. I have no intentions of putting anyone in their place, and every intention of making Wikipedia a better resource. I'm aware you were not aware of our stance vis-a-vis fair use galleries. That is why I pointed you to the relevant guideline. I'm sorry that pointing out the relevant guideline to show you why the gallery was removed offended you. There is indeed a myriad of policies and guidelines on this project, and new editors are cast off into an unknown sea of rules. Frankly, it sucks. But, it is what it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

If you decide to go around editing other people's user pages on their behalf ([24]) then it might be a good idea, out of common courtesy alone, to leave a note on their user page explaining why you have made changes, and under what authority you have made those changes. In fact, a note along the lines of "Please change this image because..." would have been a good place to start. •• Fly by Night (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have made recommendations that people ask before editing someone's user page. The reality is that you do not own your userpage, and content that violates our policies can and will be removed by others without prior notification. There's even a bot running around taking care of some of these violations, and it does not ask permission to make these edits. The edit summary I provided is almost always sufficient to clarify the issue to those people violating that policy. If it isn't sufficient, and people restore the WP:NFCC violating content, I usually address the misunderstanding on that user's talk page. Also, please see Wikipedia:UP#Images where it says "Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning" Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and re this edit summary: Thank you for your compliment that I need to learn some manners and that I'm rude. I appreciate it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're quite right, I don't own my user space. Just like I don't own my personal space. But you wouldn't, or at least I hope you wouldn't, dream of invading my personal space without permission. Technically you were totally within you rights to do what you did, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't rude and rather annoying. •• Fly by Night (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal space does not include your userspace. I would never dream of invading your personal space. What I am doing is not rude, and the edit summary pointed you in the direction you needed to go to understand the policy. As I noted, if further clarification was needed I would have provided it. I'm sorry you were offended. It was not my intention to offend you, as opposed to your edit summary's apparent intention to offend me (which failed) by calling me rude and lacking in manners. You may wish to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. I'm sorry that you see my criticism as a personal attack. It wasn't personal; it was just an expression of an opinion based on you conduct. •• Fly by Night (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone to "learn some manners" [25] is not an expression of opinion of someone's conduct. It is indicating that person is lacking manners. That is a personal attack. I don't expect, want, nor am I asking for an apology from you, or even your agreement that it was a personal attack. I frankly don't care, and see no point in further arguing about behavior. I want no part of it. I do want you to read and understand WP:NPA, if for no other reason than your own personal edification in the hopes that you will not run afoul of that policy in the future. If you do not place non-free content outside of the main article namespace again, it's fairly unlikely we'll run into each other again. Goodbye, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and I myself made the comment for no other reason than your own personal edification. Goodbye. •• Fly by Night (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of WP:NPA says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". You commented on me. If you fail to understand and abide by WP:NPA, you will run into problems here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Stop Trolling User-boxes

It would be respectful if you stopped trolling peoples user-boxes. What a sad existence it must be to remove images from user-boxes all day long. Do you gain some kind of power high? I don't understand what motivates you to act like a drunken sailor on wiki? Why are you the way you are? And please...don't say "because I respect the rules of wikipedia...blah...blah...blah." You're a disturbed individual. Thank you for your precious time. I hope I didn't keep you from removing images on someones wiki. Your time is oh so valuable! --Suplemental (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the humor :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Awards Table almost makes me want to go digging through history and find diffs for the ones you don't already have linked... VernoWhitney (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't keep all of them. The point is to discourage people insulting me (and it's worked well for the most part), not to keep track of all of it. There's a bunch more. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I think it's hilarious. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I thought the drunken sailor comment was cute, which is why I added it. Had a hard time finding a picture of a drunken sailor though (for the userbox above the table). The best I could find was a simulated drunken sailor. Oh well :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What do you do with a drunken sailor, what do you do with a drunken sailor, what do you do with a drunken sailor, earl-eye in the morning? Have him purge non-free Wiki-pictures, have him purge non-free Wikipictures, have him purge non-free Wikipictures, earl-eye in the morning." (And if that song is under copyright, please consider the above fair use as parody and duly rationaled with my addition of the second verse.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hysterical! ahahhahaah! Nicely done! I'll have to immortalize that somewhere :) Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the image off my subpage...

Thanks! I wasn't aware that was a policy, so I'll be sure to avoid it in the future. When I actually make the article I'm working on live, I'll re-add the logo. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice you do a lot of fair use image clean-up around here. How do you find the images that are non-free? Do you just go through images to check where they're posted, or check all the newly-uploaded images? Anyway, I think it's an important job, I might help out some time. Since returning to Wikipedia, I really haven't done too much actual editing, but I do like helping out with some of the more "behind-the-scenes" stuff. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a report run every day at 20:00 UTC that shows all non-free files that are in use on something other than an actual mainspace article. This is the report. Prior to this report's existence, it was real hit and miss. It was just what you stumbled across. Help in this arena of fair use compliance issues would be most welcome. However, you should understand upfront that most people who attempt to enforce policy in this arena coming under scathing attacks from other editors here. The section here on this talk page right above this one is typical. You have to not care about the personal insults. I don't, in fact I find most of it funny. Some people have burned out trying to enforce WP:NFCC policy. There's lots of other ways to help with NFCC enforcement. For example, this report shows articles with an unusually high number of non-free files. Such usage isn't generally supported, and there has to be strong rationale behind the mass overuse of many of these pages. That sort of work too is just as likely to get you insulted. You're not going to win any popularity contests conducting work in this area, and if you ever want to be an admin I'd suggest becoming an admin first then doing enforcement. Doing this work guarantees you'll never be an administrator, because too many people will hate you for what you do (even if it is right and perfectly in line with policy). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back end work in general, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Database reports. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Smaug123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arab League

Regarding the display of non-free images on this page which I've been fighting DumbBOT over already; as it's intended to be used for figuring out which of them are copyright violations and which are not, I believe that this use qualifies as exempt from the policy in the short term. Do you disagree? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hoping to convert the whole page into a gallery today to make it easier to sort the images for copyvios; thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bump. I missed this. If you want to get an exemption for this page, the appropriate place to ask for it is WT:NFC. However, I doubt it will succeed. The policy at WP:NFCC #9 notes that non-free images outside of the main article namespace should be linked, not inlined. Concerned parties wanting to review the images can view them by clicking on the link. While the policy does provide the possibility of exemptions, in practice there are none. Witness this list. That is ALL the non-free content usage outside of the main article namespace as of 20:00 UTC yesterday. All of those violations have been removed, save one which has an unclear status (and it's not, in any case, on an exempted page). Fighting with DASHBot is not the way through this. Please seek an exemption at WT:NFC. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asked. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you turn the rest of the galleries on this page into linked lists too, so they're all the same to work with? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Image

Regarding the removal of the logo on the future TRF page, I cannot see how this image was removed as I have presmission from the the people are TRF to use the image. Could you clarify why was it removed. I may have also worked out you may be a cretin also. Thanks Welshman25 Welshman25 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshman25 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you can figure out how to communicate with people without resorting to personal insults, I'll be happy to discuss the issue. Until then, goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bellin Run Logo

Hello, I am not trying to be specifically beligerant with puting the Bellin Run logo on my wikipedia page. I work for Bellin, and I have their direct approval to use this logo. However, I understand that there are channels to putting things like this on a wikipedia page. I have tried to understand and be compliant with the non-free logo usage, however, I must just not understand the rules. Every time that I restore the image onto my wikipedia page, I genuinely tried to square it away with the rules. If you could help me understand how this process can proceed, because it is the logo for the Bellin Run, and is very important that it is used for an encyclopedic nature. This logo is irreplaceable for the wikipedia page to be complete, because it is the only image that can non-verbally express the Bellin Run.

Thank you,

Market Development

Responding on your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

userspace image

Sorry, must have missed that part of the Wiki rules. Thanks for pointing it out. I commented the other images out. Lawyer in training (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hammersoft

Can you look into this user's userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duke53

I believe he has violated some of the image rules in which you are familiar. Thank you.

--63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything glaringly wrong. The only potential problem is the sourcing of File:Garment1.jpg. Tineye returned more than 30 results for the image, but it becomes a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first. Other than that, there's nothing problematic that I see in terms of copyrights and image use. Is there something in particular that you think is problematic? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Garment1 image is what I was concerned about. Are you sure there are no problems with that file? Thanks. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't guarantee there are no problems. It's a question of which image came first, the one here or the 30+ ones out on the net. If it came from the net, what were the original rights? Hard to decipher. You can post the image on WP:PUF. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm stalking your page (FYI) and for reference in case it does get posted to PUF, I imagine that it's legitimately PD under Ticket:2006113010018241 along with the altered File:Garment.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That again is a question of chicken and egg. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and it would require an OTRS agent to confirm, but it's something for future reference should it come up (as I imagine it will). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments needed

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass in general, but you can feel free to pass this on to the editor you mentioned; if the article remains at it is, it will be put up for deletion again, and will most likely get deleted this time around. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hammersoft. I will pass the on as you say. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following over a week of comments by multiple editors, with only one dissenter, I've made the change at Spider-Man. If you'd like to nominate Fictional history of Spider-Man for AfD, I'll support. I'd do it, but this has been such a long, grueling process, I don't have the wherewithal right now...1 With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft Talk News: Sudden revelation

For all you Hammersoft talk page watchers :)

I've just had a sudden revelation. According to the edit count on "my preferences", I've just crossed 16,000 edits today. Of course, I felt it as it was happening. I felt uplifted, enlightened, a break in the clouds appeared and a ray of sunshine shone down upon me and the voices of wikiangels on high spoke to me, blessing me with the everlasting fruit of cluefullness. I was such a newb when I only had 15,999 edits.

According to this pathetic demonstration of idiocy, I am now a "Most Complete Tutnum", whatever the hell that is. Still, I haven't demoted myself to an administrator, reviewer, rollbacker, autopatroller, edit filter manager, accountcreator, or any other 'level'. Therefore, it's highly likely I'm out to kill the project, in need of a life, stomping on other people's work, lacking common courtesy, trolling userboxes, a disturbed individual, and a cretin (all of these things have been said of me recently). I'm sure I'll be magically cured of all of these things once I become a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia.

Talk hard, and rise up and stab at them with your plastic sporks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you should be reveling in the new Cigarette Burn which has been added to your Book of Knowledge... How dare you try and buck the system! :-P VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know he got sick from smoking so much on set? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I had never heard of the movie before. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! And now I'm not just complete, I'm also perfect! [26] --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just think, a mere 19,000 more edits and you'll be more than perfect. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Non-free content and User:Trikster87/Userboxes/Former Boys Brigade

Sorry! Ill avoid it in the future but one question; what else could I do? Trikster87 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that doesn't involve the use of a non-free image. See Wikipedia:Userboxes for direction. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saltburn Miniature Railway

Greetings Hammersoft,

You recently removed a non-free logo from Template:Saltburn Miniature Railway. However the rationale you cite for doing so is a guideline, not a policy. Its "in a nutshell" includes this: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".

The template in question is unusual in that it is for use in only a single article (Saltburn Miniature Railway) and acts as a shell into which several other templates are included. One of these Template:Infobox UK railway contains the logo_filename= parameter. Given the way these established templates operate, should this not be one of the common sense exceptions? -Arb. (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC is policy, not a guideline. You are possibly confusing it with WP:NFC, which is a guideline which includes a transclusion of the policy. Non-free images are not permitted in templates, and there's no really no wiggle room on that. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the confusion. Shrugs. Will work around it another way. -Arb. (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stop reverting my edit

your so fucken gay get a fucken life your fagot or go get laid or something FGaribay (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting your humor, that should be "You're so fucking gay. Get a fucking life. You're a faggot. Go get laid or something." Regardless, thanks for the humor! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Jeez! Sorry! But I need those images. OK, what liscence does it need. What kind of if thats what your talking about dude? If you read my userspace it will say i know how to use this site but make mistakes! Sorry kid! If you tell me, Ill re-upload it or find another one and write down the list of licensing its needed. Trikster87, 10:29, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

The issue is those images are copyrighted. There is NO license you can upload them under which would make them compatible with a userbox. They belong to other organizations and you do not have rights to them. Neither does Wikipedia. Therefore, we have to use them here under terms of our WP:NFCC policy, which forbids their use on userpages. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty20

Dear Hammersoft,

Iv been repeatedly using the logo of the Chennai Super Kings in the Twenty20 article for a variety of reasons.Let me tell you, the Indian Premier League is the largest domestic cricket tournament ever.It has a wide mass publicity and massive revenue with players all over the world taking part.In fact it even surpasses the World Twenty20 Championship itself.But there is nothing much mentioned in this article excepting a few lines along with other Twenty20 leagues which are significantly inferior.So i hereby felt that the Indian Premier League will get a better propaganda(rightly it deserves especially in this article) if one of its team logos were used in this article.

As for the image, I have no other choice as there are only a fewer images uploaded based on this article.

--A.arvind.arasu (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The propaganda value of the image is irrelevant to Wikipedia and its purposes. The logo in this usage is not significant, and fails WP:NFCC #8. It's used in a section containing no discussion of the team or its logo, making it fail WP:NFCC #8. It also fails WP:NFCC #10c for lacking a rationale for this use, nor could a rationale be adequately produced; we don't accept "propaganda" as a rationale for including fair use images. I've removed the image again, and ask that you please stop restoring it. If you disagree and think this usage should be permitted, then please take the issue up at WP:NFCR. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is'nt there any other way of using the image in the content, now that you say that another rationale cannot be produced?

No, there isn't. Not within that content. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Harris-Moore

The image you added to the infobox is not property of the FBI. Though they are using it, the rights Colton Harris-Moore has to this image have not been transferred to the FBI. That image is a derivative of File:Colton_Harris-Moore.jpg. The image on Commons has been marked for speedy deletion because of this, and this image was in fact already removed from the article earlier today. Please don't use it again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. There was no intention of reverting your removal. I was updating the infobox from an earlier edit with other information. KimChee (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Would you be kind enough to remove it please? I'm not interested in conveying the idea to onlookers that I'm edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever posted it earlier has replaced it with a screenshot of the entire wanted poster. Thoughts? KimChee (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WRFEC

Maybe if a large number of people are unhappy with the policy, the policy itself should be reviewed. Or alteratively the authors of the policy should review your actions to see if you are interpreting the policy the way they intended. If policy changed would you change your actions? WRFEC (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the policy are the community at large. The policy was written in accordance with consensus. If you wish to report me for violating this policy, you are welcome to do so at the incidents noticeboard. I believe I'm acting in accordance with the policy, and see no reason to stop acting in support of it as I have been.
If you wish to see the policy changed, the best place to initiate that discussion is probably the non-free content guideline/policy discussion page, and also place a link to that discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
If the policy did change, then of course I would modify my actions as appropriate to the policy.
I'm sorry you are irritated by the implementation of this policy; but it's reality. We do not accept non-free content when free content exists or can be created. That is codified in our policy at WP:NFCC #1. That policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It's quite clear. The Foundation has laid out that images of living people used for depiction purposes are almost always unacceptable. This has been laid out at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy which says we "may not allow (non-free) material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." If you wish to change that policy, you should contact the Foundation. Contact information for them is located at Foundation:Contact us. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this very much since your deletions have generated like 10 pages of anger on your user page, there seems to be at least a large fraction of the community at large opposed to policy or at least your interpretation of it. Where were they when policy was written? WRFEC (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, please stop refactoring my talk page. Second, I'm not particularly interested as to whether "10 pages of anger" exist on my userpage. It has no bearing on what I do. There are a large number of people who are quite opposed to our non-free content policy here and willing to vent anger towards people who implement that policy. What I do is in accordance with the policy. If it isn't, you've been directed to where you can make complaints about my actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you yourself admitted that a large number of people dont like the policy which is supposed to be a consensus. It doesnt make sense without your quotation above my comments. WRFEC (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the policy should be changed, I've directed you as to where to do so. That I should stop what I'm doing because a large number of people don't like it has no traction with me; the policy is what is. The 'large body' isn't the policy. WP:NFCC is. Seek to change it if you so desire. That will affect me. A thousand people acting directly against our policy won't. Also, you might want to read WP:TALK. Interspersing your comments within mine disrupts the conversation. Please don't. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, I thought you said the policy was written by the community. Now you say it was written by the foundation? Your justification is falling apart here, which is it? Perhaps it doesnt matter to you which it is, you just enjoy deleting stuff? WRFEC (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your best reasoned argument for getting me to stop implementing WP:NFCC is that I "enjoy deleting stuff" so I apparently should feel bad, we have nothing further to discuss. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Have you thought about configuring your talk page for automatic archival? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considered, yes. There's a reason for my madness. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there isn't just madness for your reason? VernoWhitney (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General insanity prevails :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:File:Oregon community credit union photo.jpg

Hi, Hammersoft. In response to your question about the image on my Oregon Community Credit Union page, I think that it is in the public domain because earlier I was trying to upload an image from Flickr when I realized that on the source page it was clearly written below the image, "All rights reserved," which meant that the image was not allowed on Wikipedia, correct? Well, when I found the image that I have now no copyrights were listed except for Facebook's copyright. So there is no copyright on the image that Facebook is responsible for, right? Jsayre64 —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Copyrights are, in modern law, granted automatically. A rights owner does not need to specifically state "Copyrighted © 2010 so-and-so" in order for something to be copyrighted. As a result, we presume things are copyrighted if they are copyrightable (and this particular image is), unless we have evidence from the rights holder that they have released rights. We don't have that here. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that now my only to hope to use the image would be if I asked the photo's author if the image is copyrighted and if it is, for permission to use it? And if I can't use it I could pretty much only get an image by creating one myself, but is it allowed to post an image of something that is copyrighted? Jsayre64 —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's harder and more complex than even that. In asking, you should presume the work is copyrighted; by default it is under U.S. law. Further, asking for permission to use it is insufficient. A number of editors have made the mistake of asking for permission to use a given copyrighted work on Wikipedia. Many copyright holders are happy to have their works on Wikipedia, and are happy to grant permission to do so. However, permission to use on Wikipedia is absolutely meaningless to us. In fact, permission to use on Wikipedia is one of the criteria for speedy deletion here, specifically F3. What you have to ask for is release under a free license. There's specific instructions on how to do that at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
Now, as for posting a picture of something that is copyrighted; that depends. If you were to take the picture referenced in our discussion here, you could release it under a free license and the credit union would have no basis on which to complain of copyright infringement. Anything in the photograph that is copyrighted is de minimis to the entire photographic work. For example, the logo of the credit union is there, but the law views the logo in the context of the overall photograph as being of little risk to the credit union's ability to profit from the use of their logo. There's also freedom of panorama considerations as well. For example, if you were to photograph a statue in Oregon that was placed on public display last year, and the picture was focused on the statue as the subject of it, then the person who holds copyrights to the statue would also hold rights to the image you took. You could not release their rights, and therefore any such images on Wikipedia are tagged with {{non-free 3d art}}. Now, if the image existed in a square in downtown Portland, and you were to photograph the entirety of the square, with the statue not being the specific subject of the photograph, then the statue is de minimis to the photograph, and the rights holder of the statue could lay no claim to your work.
Fun, huh? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florida images

I know you hang out at WP:MCQ so you might be able to answer this one. I found File:Charles E Keller.jpg which comes from the Flickr pages of the State Library and Archives of Florida. What copyright do you think is appropriate? {{PD-FLGov}} or something else? There are many great images there. TIA. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the source image at [27] states at the top "No known copyright restrictions". I would use only those images from their collections that contain that tag on them. I think here on en.wiki, {{PD-FLGov}} would work fine. The same tag on Commons is worded differently though. Odd. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Bannon book covers 1962 and before

These are no longer under copyright. I never got around to fixing the documentation on the images. The Cleis Press editions are under copyright and I have no problem with their being removed from Bannon's article, but the original covers between 1957 and 1962 are in the public domain. Would you assist me with amending the image pages and restoring the images to the article? --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to proof that these books are no longer under copyright? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Bannon talk page now, Gold Medal Books went out of business in the early 1970s. Their artwork copyrights were not renewed. Bannon herself has confirmed this in email with me. That was from 2007, but I can find it if you absolutely need it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I FOUND ONE!

OK, so I am slightly excited I did what no one could do. I found a photo (see here) of Colton Harris-Moore and it is under CC 3.0 (see to the left). YES! It is actually a good shot too. Whether you want to upload it or you want me to, either way works, just let me know. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve some kind of award for the incredible amount of effort you've been going through trying to find a free license image. Unfortunately, the site is licensed CC-BY-NC. That means the site's content can't be used for commercial purposes. That's not free enough. It has to be permissible to use the content for commercial purposes. It also does not allow derivative work. "CC" by itself doesn't mean much for us. But, this gets worse. The image is credited to www.wenn.com. They have a photo library on that site, which contains photos of Colton. See here. This image that you found is a direct copy of the image they took. The mrpoplife.com site does not hold rights to it. In fact, they're probably using it in violation of the terms found on the wenn.com site. See the terms at the bottom of the page on the wenn.com cite I gave you above. So closer, but no cigar. Sorry! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn! Thought I had found one. Yeah, when I get into looking for something, I look until I find. That was the best I could find too. So far, all I can find is copies of the already exsisting AP photos and a couple posters on Flickr. Oh well, back to the ol' drawin' board. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, found a couple more that might potentially be pictures we can use of Harris-Moore. Give this a look-see: No Copyright, Also no copyright (Picture "Shrunk" though larger in available at picture link), From a KOMO4 story, another with no copyright, and this one from KOMO. What do you think? Any of these can be used? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also found a poster one, but can't add the link due to the spam filter. Will send it via email. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to step on Hammer's toes, but if no copyright is explicitly given, we must assume it is copyrighted by the person that took the work. We need a photograph where the photograph owner has explicitly released the image to a Creative Commons-compatible image that allows for reuse. --MASEM (t) 07:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, I am actively looking for one, but those are the best I could come up with so far. At present, all I can find is just those and ones from the AP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Masem is absolutely correct. Even if no © sign is present or "copyright" is stated, copyright is presumed because copyright for creative works is automatic under current law. There must be an explicit release under a license compatible with Wikipedia. Without that release, it will not work. None of the images linked above match that criteria. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Damn. Oh well, back to the ol' drawin' board...yet again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term abuse report on you

Just a heads up, User:Jsayre64 has created a long-term abuse report on you. Of course, the report does not fit long-term abuse criteria and has already been tagged for deletion. I've also warned the reporter about creating false reports. Just thought you might want to know. Cya around! Netalarm^talk 13:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About time someone reported that awful guy and his weird name. :) How can a hammer be soft, just doesn't make sense, not logical. :) LOL! Hope that made you laugh on the whole thing. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't technically reporting you, hammersoft, but I understand your concern. I saw the stuff on your user page that, to me, should not have been there, and I felt as if I had to report someone. The page asked for a particular user, and (although I knew other people were involved) since it was your user page, it was the only name that I could find; it didn't say who added the "Certified Idiot" thing, etc., of course. By this you may consider cleaning up the user page. I didn't edit it, of course; user pages are private. Anyway, who cares now? This is over and done. :) I apologize for any harm, and I hope you accept that. Let's move on. Now I'll push aside the distraction and get back to what I was doing before: improving Wikipedia pages. Jsayre64 —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. No worries. Everything on my userpage is stuff I want there for one reason or another. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas?

Hi Hammersoft. I hear you specialize in questions about fair use of non-free images and that kind of thing. I've already tried about five times to put a photo of something that had to do with Oregon Community Credit Union on my userspace draft about the credit union, and each time the image was non-free, there was no proof that it was free, my fair use rationale wasn't acceptable, etc. So I looked up on Wikipedia's help pages how to ask permission to use a non-free image. So I emailed the credit union and they said no, I couldn't use it, because they never offer permission to use non-free content that they own. I'm pretty bummed now. I really think I need an image on the page. Do you have any suggestions? Jsayre64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

After you've placed the article in the main article namespace, upload this image: [28] here. Add {{non-free logo}} for the licensing. Then add a fair use rationale per the guidelines located at WP:FURG. Then add the logo image to the article in the infobox. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hammersoft. I hope it works. Jsayre64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Shadow The Hedgehog pic on my user page

If it is not a free image, then why is it featured on the Shadow the Hedgehog page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow Android (talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in the Shadow the Hedgehog articke because it illutrates and identifies the subject of the article. That is not the case for your user page. It is a non-free images and you can't use it there. Simple as that. Franamax (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universities seals in list of universities

Hi. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 47#Universities seals in list of universities. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Box Image Deletions

In retrospect I see how the university logo of Hopkins cannot be applied, which was why for St. Francis College I used the letters S-F-C. Also the original image of the Mets is clearly a logo, yet I replaced it with the image that contains the letters NY. Being that arranged letters cannot be copyright. Yet, this would then apply to the original image for Aguilas cibaenas which you deleted, because here again there are just arranged letters, so perhaps you were a bit over zealous when you came to that image use? --El Mayimbe (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The image is marked as non-free. You re-tagged it, but I feel incorrectly both in that you left {{non-free logo}} on it and in that the image is more creative than simple text. Regardless, when I removed it the image was tagged as non-free (and still is), and per WP:NFCC #9, the use of non-free images in userspace is not permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why then was the Mets image NY marked as it was? Is that incorrect? And does the stylized lettering constitute the ability for it to be copyright? FYI, these are genuine questions, not sarcasm. If so, then i will reverse the change to the aguilas image with A-C, and remove the mets and aguilas logos as well. Just please make sure you are correct. Thank you in advance. --El Mayimbe (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For you sir.

		The This is the First Barnstar I've Ever Given Barnstar
		Thank you for partolling my bot's shutoff pages and reverting the errant shutoffs. Tim1357 ^talk 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed your userpage aswell. Tim1357 ^talk 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think. If this keeps up, I'll be respectable. Then people will REALLY insult me! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, it wasnt an insult. Being the bots owner, I cant just revert a shutoff without doing a full investigation as to why. You, on the other hand, can. In any case, I went ahead and requested full page protection for the pages, so it should be less of a headache for both of us. Tim1357 ^talk 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of course that it wasn't an insult :) Just a sideways observation on my part that the more respectable a person becomes here, the more insults they seem to attract. Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen the bot shutdown because of an actual malfunction. LOTS of people who don't LIKE it and shut it down, but none that have seen an actual error for that function. I would ask though if you could up the rate per day that it does NFCC #9 removals. It seems for those days that I don't keep at the removals, the bot seems to slowly lose ground. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"badgering"

By now, it should be obvious that I have no dog in this hunt - I neither support nor oppose BC/delta's return to bot operations. I filed at WP:A/R/CL because an issue had come before both the bureaucrats and the bot approvals group [I hold membership in both these groups] and felt that it required further clarification from the committee. As it stands, it did require committee input, and further, required additional community input as well (which was pointed out at the clarifications page).

I respectfully ask you to revisit your suggestion that the "[The] filing is badgering of [the] editor". –xeno^talk 14:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I still feel it was wholly unnecessary. This editor has been out of line in the past, but he's paid his dues and quite a group of editors would very gladly see his head on a platter. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so; but the simple fact is: despite Betacommand's claims to the contrary, there are still editing restrictions in place that required clarification. That I sought clarification on these is not badgering. –xeno^talk 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is your opinion, an opinion which I do not share. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Noted. –xeno^talk 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apache licence

User:Laserles has uploaded several images with an Apache licence attached to his images though not properly formatted. I believe the licence should be {{Apache-2.0}}, but I thought it only applied to the software and not to photographs. Is it an appropriate licence we can use and if so is it correct for his uploads? TIA ww2censor (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inappropriate, but it's not a huge deal. The Apache 2.0 license is a Free software license. It's obvious the intended use is for software. Photographic images are not software. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right

I did not work enough on that picture, you are right it's not legal. Please delete it. Jon Ascton (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Accidental misclick of watchlist "rollback" hot-link: [29]. Apologies. CIreland (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. I was certain it was a mistake, but very surprised nonetheless :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another image needing deletion

Here's another image that needs to be deleted, per the FBI. Perhaps you could help them out,. . . ;-) WTF? (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To return the favor of the sarcasm, I believe your efforts are unexpectedly misdirected. That image is hosted on Commons. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want to be an admin?

I saw your comments on the RFA talk page, and I have to say I'm sick of reading things like 'I pass your criteria in spades. But, nobody in their right minds would even nominate me'. I may or may not be in my right mind, but if you want to be an admin and think you've got what it takes, I'd be happy to nominate you. I'm not an admin myself, but I think I can tell a competent user when I see one, and you look pretty competent to me. You say you would be unable to 'garner even 30% of the vote.', but as far as I can tell you've never run - so why don't you put your money where your mouth is and find out? Robofish (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain my comments a bit; I make them not because I want, hope, expect, to be an administrator. I make them because someone such as myself who is not in any respect a risk to the project and who has long experience here should have virtually no trouble becoming an administrator. But, RfA is in part a popularity contest. I make no apologies for the fact that I frankly don't care if someone here likes me or not. I speak my mind. If it offends some people, then it offends some people. There are a number of people who agree with what I do around here. But, even them I don't count as friends. Nobody owes me anything here, and I owe them nothing. This makes me dangerous to many people. I follow no clique, and that scares some. From my perspective, I don't care what they think. What I do is follow policy, guideline, consensus and best practices here. I've frequently been accused of making up policy, trying to implement my own views, and far worse. That's all provably false, and I've done so many times. But, it doesn't matter if I prove it or not. I have been insulted here more times than I care to count (the table on the bottom of my userpage is just a smattering of the times), and have a rather large host of enemies here. Yet, I've never been legitimately blocked, and only taken to WP:AN/I by one editor, who was essentially told they were in the wrong. In the extreme majority of cases where I've voted for an image to be kept or deleted, the image has been kept or deleted just as I voted. Same with most AfDs I've been in. I also placed myself before WP:ER to gain community input on my work, resulting in no stated serious shortcomings in my work here. My judgment vis-a-vis Wikipedia standards seems to be pretty sound. Yet, many people view me as a threat.
I'll say this; if RfA has evolved to the point where an editor such as myself can pass with ease, then I would gladly become an administrator and reverse my stance in regards to not wanting to be an administrator. But, I know as well as I'm sure you know that this is not the case. As Malleus said, RfA is a week of ritualized humiliation. I wouldn't personally care if it became a venue for a million attacks upon me. I care not about the personal opinions of people whom I've only met through a scattering of electrons. But, such an RfA would be an absolutely pointless gesture, I'm sure. As an addendum, I'll note that my userpage alone would prevent me from passing RfA, and sanitizing it would result in the RfA being even more savaged for doing so.
Nevertheless, if you're bent on nominating, I'll legitimately and truthfully accept the nomination with full intent to serve to the best of my abilities if it were to pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fair points. No, I'm not bent on nominating you, and I won't push the matter further - I just wanted to be clear that if you wanted to run for RFA but the only thing stopping you was the lack of a nominator, I'd be happy to help. I understand now that you have other good reasons to think that if you ran, you'd face a great deal of unpleasant opposition, personal attacks and drama, and that you'd rather avoid the experience. (Although I've always done my best to avoid even getting into 'drama', I have similar feelings about RFA myself, and I'd rather not put myself through it.) In that case, all you can do is carry on editing and doing the best job of that you can, and don't worry too much about adminship - the vast majority of Wikipedia editors get along perfectly well without the admin tools anyway. Robofish (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not that I wish to avoid the RfA drama. Drama has no effect on me in almost every case. I rather enjoy editing, and view 'editor' as the highest 'office' on this project. Every other position here that so many people view as hierarchical are really further tools given to people who then use them to aid editors. These people work for editors, not the other way around. I view gaining these tools as sort of a demotion in a sense, if anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, it's worth giving it a try. We've had a bunch of users who never made it the first time, but did the second time. /Hey Mid (contributions) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had an RfA at all (just to be clear). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but like I said, "it's worth giving it a try" (at least). /Hey Mid (contributions) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, if you think I could pass RfA in its current state, you don't know RfA very well :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you at least appreciate your support from the user above who have originally asked you. As far as I can tell, you have mostly been working with fair use images and WP:NFCC. You have basically been doing so ever since October 2007 (almost a year after you registered your current username). You have been (real) active in almost 3 years. /Hey Mid (contributions) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're a little worried about WP:NOTNOW? /Hey Mid (contributions) 22:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leonid Kharitonov 1970s 005.jpg

Hi Hammersoft. Thanks for the warning. This image and the associated article Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov are watched and edited by an international team (UK, US, Russia), including the son of L.M. Kharitonov in Moscow. (The performer and subject of the article takes no part in it, due to age, health and professional modesty). I have sent a message to User:MKharitonov who together with his father holds the copyright of this photo, asking him to upload a smaller version of this photo as a free image in Wikimedia Commons. However this is is his holiday time, and there may be a delay of several weeks before he can do this. I am asking you to delay the speedy deletion of the image for a few weeks to give him a chance to get his father's permission to do this. The performer Kharitonov is a grand old man in Moscow now, and I believe it is worth preserving his dignity by not removing his photo and spoiling the article hastily. I am sure you will agree that we should tread carefully and treat his article with respect in his old age. He and his Moscow acquaintances, as well has his worldwide audience, are very proud that Wikipedia has hosted this article about his art. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't control whether the image is speedy deleted or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I have copied my above message onto the discussion page of the image file, so other people can see it - maybe the ones who control speedy deletions. -Storye book (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to update you on the situation. The image file was speedy deleted within three days instead of the seven days (not by you, so I'm not complaining about you). This would have given insufficient time for objections if anyone had any, especially as this is holiday time and many people are away from their computers. Surely the seven days is intended to give time for discussion? Although the Kharitonov family has now replaced the image in Commons as a free image, and the problem is solved in that sense, the performer's family has been extremely distressed by the summary treatment, since they went to a lot of trouble to give full permission for the image to appear on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia rules were correctly followed and checked by our international team. I know that Wikipedia is currently trying to remove as many unfree images as possible and to replace them with free ones, but I should have thought that this case could have been dealt with more respectfully and considerately. It was the performer and his son (the copyright owners) who chose this particular image to go at the top of the article, so I'm sure you can understand how they felt when it was suddenly removed and deleted. I personally support the work of Wikipedia administrators whose work is fundamentally protecting the existence of the article in question, and I'm grateful for that. I'm also grateful for the notice that you sent me, so that our international team could organise replacement of the image. The reason why I am telling you all this is that I think that there are some potential improvements which would make Wikipedia a better and more friendly place for us all. Cheers. -Storye book (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not trying to remove any more non-free images than it normally does. This has always been a free content encyclopedia project, and will always remain so. As such, non-free images have to jump through very significant hurdles to be acceptable here. You might be interested to know we currently have more than 370,000 non-free images here[30]. I think your best efforts would be directed at contacting the performer and/or his son and obtaining the release of an image of him under a free license. In the meantime, the article remains and there's no particular inherent harm in the image missing at this time. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries - I think you misunderstood my previous message. The performer's son has already released the same image on Commons under a free licence and it's back in the article Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov. I am grateful that he has done this. Thanks. -Storye book (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Awards

Hello, I see you removed the Emmy Image that was placed on several pages that I created. You removed the items under WP:NFCC #10C? These images did link back to the original image with appropriate licensing tags and image usage. The image is filed under Wiki Commons so I would appreciate how you feel that this rule applies. I await your reply. --Canyouhearmenow 18:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The image isn't hosted on Commons, but here locally on en.wiki. It's tagged as a non-free image. In order to be here on en.wiki as a non-free image, it must comply with all points of WP:NFCC, including #10c. #10c requires a separate, specific fair use rationale for each use of a non-free item. Currently, it has just one extremely weak non-free rationale targeted at the Emmy Award article. No other rationale exists for its usage, meaning it can and should be removed from every other single article it is used on until such time as a non-free rationale exists for those additional uses. Instructions on how to create a non-free rationale exist at WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think the argument would exist that since it is on the "Emmy" page and used there with license, the regional s are all a part of the National academy and all rights and privileges are granted forthwith. This would include the image of the Emmy itself. Hence the reason that I placed it on the article to start with. There is no distinction between national and regional with regards to the use of image and rights of image for the trophy as spelled out in all of the websites for both national and regional. So, in conclusion, it would stand to reason that the image would be justified as applicable since the organizations are one in the same and the image does not change from one to another. Thoughts? --Canyouhearmenow 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see that it is necessary. One does not need an image of the award to understand the article, and if one must see that they can see it at the main article. That's a principle that's followed in many areas on the project. I don't really care all that much in this regard. But, there must be a rationale for each use. That I do care about. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images of artwork, esp. license plates

I know you're pretty up on the fair-use and licensing rules, so I'd like your opinion on this edit I saw tonight. The removed image, File:Nylz.jpg, is tagged as public domain. However, as a photograph of a piece of artwork, can the photographer claim PD status, or would the state still have copyright over the image? I'm thinking that with a username like DCMA Takedown Notice to Follow Shortly (talk · contribs), the intent of the edit is to remove an image that they feel is infringing. However, how many of the other license plates at Vehicle registration plates of New York then also need to be deleted? Hence, I want a second opinion before I start knocking over dominoes. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If copyright is held on the design of the license plate, then yes I think in this case the photographer doesn't get rights to the image simply by taking an image of it and cropping it to basically just the plate. If things worked that way, then nobody could hold defensible copyright to any two dimensional work of art. All anyone would need do is take a high resolution image, crop, and suddenly they'd have rights. The specific question is, does the state have copyright on the image? We need evidence they don't. As to that article, it's been something on my to do list for a while, as well as United_States_license_plate_designs_and_serial_formats, Vehicle registration plates of Wyoming, Vehicle registration plates of Arizona, and, well, you get the picture :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft Talk News: Hmm, where have I seen this before?

Flying across the viral nets today is the story of the ~~Wikipedia editor~~Flight attendant who exited ~~Wikipedia~~JetBlue in rather dramatic fashion. He must have been taking tips from WP:AN/I, and the other drama boards. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FCB.svg

Reg. PD, how does the new logo cross the threshold of originality? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 20:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't evaluate that. If I did, I'd say it does. The threshold of originality is very low. This isn't just text. There's artwork at play. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for iPhone app screenshots

Hi Hammersoft. Please could you kindly advise me as to whether there are any copyright issues regarding this iPhone app screenshot? I took the photo myself with my own camera, and the iPhone itself is OK to photograph, being a 3D object, but what about the screenshot of the app? I would like to upload it to Commons as my own photo under a free-use licence. It would be in support of the article I created, Row counter (hand knitting), in which the associated set of photos on Commons aims to demonstrate all the different types of row counter. If you say there is a copyright issue here, I can immediately delete it myself from Photobucket (which is why I put it there first). The photo version that you see in Photobucket is of course a thumbnail, and I have the full-size version available. Thanks in anticipation of your kind help. --Storye book (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section about license plates above addresses this, without even looking at the picture. If you take a picture of something else, and crop it down to just that something, you're going to run into copyright problems if the original is copyrighted. Imagine setting up a video camera in front of your TV to record the Superbowl. Rights to rebroadcast that do not instantly transfer to you. If the screencap is copyrighted then so is a tightly cropped picture of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind help. My picture does include the 3d iPhone round the edge of the screenshot, but I'm not confident about this image after your explanation and I won't use it. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question is of whether the copyrighted thing is de minimis to the overall work. For example, if I took a photograph of the Piazza Venezia which happened to have a copyrighted sculpture sitting in the middle of the compass rose in the grass (see picture), the copyright on the sculpture would have no effect on the copyright status of the picture, as the sculpture would be de minimis to the overall work. If however I were to walk up to the sculpture and take a high detail photograph of it, then de minimis would not apply. Does that make sense? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm - as it happens I've discovered that I've still got the un-cropped original shot on the camera. The lit-up screen of the iPhone does not constitute most of the image area. Perhaps I should upload it to Wiki and see what the administrators make of it? -Storye book (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you know the answer to that :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh well, it was a nice thought. I'll give up then. Cheers and thanks for the info. -Storye book (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olgcca logo top.gif

I don't think this file is PD. Is there some kind of tag to note that (to get a second set of eyes)? –xeno^talk 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUF? I don't think there's a tag to alert a body of watchful editors as to query them for a second set of eyes. Of note: File:OLG.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's claimed under fair-use and seems to be properly tagged as copyrighted. I've submitted it to PUF. Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Δ

As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand, it is apparent that "Delta" remains indefinitely banned by the community and now that the one year suspension by ArbCom has expired it is possible for any admin to enact that ban by blocking "Delta" 's account. Of itself this would be a very reckless course of action, since it would be a poor admin (one not wishing to retain the mop, even) who would not recognise the likelihood of extended comment and possible wheelwar - noting that reversing an admin action taken under a community consensus cannot be reversed without a change in the consensus, thus an unblock is a violation of WP:WHEEL - and subsequent disruption to the project. All the more so because "Delta" has been permitted to run a bot by specific exemption of his restrictions by the ArbCom. However, if "Delta" were to return to the behaviours, attitudes, and interactions that were the basis of the complaints against the Betacommand account, a re-instatement of the community ban would not be so controversial. Under the circumstances, and for the sake of the least disruption, it would be best if "Delta" acted as if he were still under the ArbCom restrictions and ensured that any variance were agreed or at least publicised before being embarked upon.
I am writing this here because I think that you have better lines of communication with "Delta" than most, and that "Delta" may be more inclined to consider your opinion. It is also very likely that this page is less watched than User talk:Δ and that you could quietly point "Delta" to my comments. Please note that this is chiefly my own opinion on the matter and, although I have blocked Betacommand in the past and remain unconvinced he has the aptitude to integrate with the whole community, is a proposed course of action that allows "Delta" to continue editing. I shall watchlist this page for any response. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any better lines of communication with Betacommand than anyone else does. Probably my chief criticism of him is that his communication skills are virtually non-existent. I don't work with him generally because of it. As to the abstract issue, I think this needs to be settled before ArbCom. Apparently, the community restrictions are now at odds with the ArbCom restrictions. This needs to be resolved. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you warn

I've updated the latest AN thread. I think that the description of the OTRS letter is inadvertently misleading. :) He does claim copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, I'm happy to move slowly and get the warning right. My concern is we have an editor whom we know has uploaded a long series of copyright violations and who appears to be actively lying. I'm fine with a person being confused with our processes. Getting an image uploaded her requires black magic sometimes. Frankly, I think our processes are rather asinine in that regard. But, throwing ones hands up in frustration and starting to actively lie? That's crossing the line. Whether he did or not, I'm happy to leave for someone else to evaluate. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm with you. :) Copyright fraud is a major no-no for me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HF-New-Logo-2007.png

Hi, the image is being used in Humanity First article, so could you remove the template which suggests that the file should be deleted if not being used by 23rd August 2010. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was in use via a redirect, which I didn't detect. I corrected the link to avoid the redirect. The file's description page showed it as not in use because of that. I'll remove the tag. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Known issue: bugzilla:18017. –xeno^talk 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete image?

Why did you unlink [File:Firefox-logo.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firefox-logo.svg] from my template? I wasn't using it under fair use, but under the explicit conditions of the logo's license. —Waterfox (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is marked as non-free. There are two groups of images here; free license to include commercial and/or derivative works and non-free. Since the Mozilla license does not permit derivative works or commercial usage, it is considered non-free here. It therefore must adhere to all terms of WP:NFCC policy. Point #9 of that policy explicitly forbids the use of non-free images on templates. Such images may only be used on actual encyclopedia articles, and most certainly not on userboxes. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science in the Middle Ages

Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logos in Template

Hi there Hammer; did you intend to reinstate several non-free logos that you had just removed from that template? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Thanks for the catch. Fixed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images on user page

Hammersoft, I would appreciate if you had some talk first instead of editing my user page yourself, which is just as not allowed as the use of the images itself. Copyright knowledge doesn't give you the authority to do whatever you want. Belgian man (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, as it is inaccurate. Please read Wikipedia:UP#Images. Further, please read WP:NFCC #9 which explicitly forbids the use of non-free images outside of the main article namespace. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian novelist list

Hi, Can you explain to me what's up with this image business?
The point is to aid readers looking for something to read. Varlaam (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book covers are being used to "illustrate an article discussing the book in question", just like it says.

So I should just go ahead and revert your change now?

Varlaam (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they would be removed again. This is complex, and will take some reading to understand. The core issue here is that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Our m:Mission is to create this free content resource. What is free? Many people think "if I can read it, it's free". But that's not what we're striving for. Instead, we are working towards free as in the liberty to do with the work whatever we want to do, including creating derivative works and creating commercial products. Most 'free' things in the world are 'free' as in the former case, not the latter case. Gratis versus Libre does an excellent job of explaining this concept. From here on when I say 'free', I mean 'free' as in libre.
Now, with all that in mind, we have a policy regarding the use of non-free content at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Within that policy, there's three different sections that apply in this case. Specifically, #1 "No free equivalent"; we have free equivalents on that list already. We're listing the authors and their notable works. That's a free equivalent. We don't have to display images of each of their works in order for a reader to understand the list. The importance of this criteria is that whenever conceivably possible, we eliminate non-free content in favor of free content. It is conceivable here on this list. Next, #3a; "Minimal usage"; we don't use many items of non-free content when one (or even none) will suffice. You might argue that using just one notable bookcover from an author's bibliography would meet this criteria, but it doesn't. We don't have to have any image in order to satisfy the reader's understanding of the article. With #8 "Contextual significance". The point of this article is to provide a list of Russian language novelists. It's not to be a compendium of all knowledge about Russian language novelists. We are not a guide to Russian language novelists. Lastly, please read and understand WP:NFLISTS. In list type articles, we do not accept much in the way of non-free content. For example, we don't accept album covers in discographies. We don't accept bookcovers in bibliographies. We don't accept per character images in lists of characters. Any such non-free content would be appropriate for specific articles to the topic of the cover or character image. For a specific example, we wouldn't accept a cover of Like a Virgin on Madonna albums discography, but we do accept it on the article specifically about the album. And one further thing; in each case that I removed images from List of Russian language novelists, the images lacked a rationale for the use. This is covered by WP:NFCC #10c.
I hope that explains the issue. If not, ask away. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly very conversant on this topic. Granted.

But it sounds somewhat akin to jesuitical hairsplitting.

Who is the aggrieved party in the instance of the Madonna discography, for example, when readers like myself are only interested in Madonna's collection of lingerie, and would dearly love a sexy snap?

Don't Madonna and her record company appreciate the use of visual aids for the benefit of illiterati such as myself?

Varlaam (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see m:Mission. The images can not and will not be used in the way you suggest. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The key phrase there being "under a free license".

I trust you, and I won't worry about this matter further.

I have already been applying your methods to other editors at Russian Novelists.

But I have a question.

Russian Wikipedia has some author photos which are probably free. (Let's assume they are.)

How does one access them, or reference them, or free them up for use over here?

Varlaam (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put them on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never worked with photos. No idea how to set that up.

Is there a "how to" guide somewhere?

Varlaam (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Commons, create an account. After that, click the "upload file" button. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

The Move-to-commons assistant says:

This image has no verificable good license, and can thus not be uploaded to commons through this tool.

So that would be the final word on the subject for that particular file then, eh?

Varlaam (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Come up with a way to verify the license. The good people at Commons (perhaps their village pump) can help. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're pushing me into unexplored territory.

Here be dragons.

Ok, I will see if what you've just said is "verificable".

Varlaam (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milk

Template:Milk Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm H2O intolerant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaw I am sorry! You poor thing! Well here, have some cookies then.

Cookies!

You can't resist COOOKIES! Your life is meaningless without COOOKIES! has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the recipe for oreos includes H2O. :( :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Uh Oh! Well you're in trouble because you got it anyways ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least I finally got cookies with the milk! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the spirit! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I always thought of you as at least a five barnstar kind of editor SPhilbrick T 01:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. The more of these I get the more legitimate I look! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular Spider-Man characters

You are one of the few that said there needs to be something to do with the characters. Well I created List of The Spectacular Spider-Man characters and what do you think? Mind you it's not perfect and there's bound to be mistakes but overall is it better than before? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One external reference? Weak. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I am planning on fixing that eventually. That one external reference is what helped helped create a Creation and the Concept section which I think is key in articles like this. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An unfortunate pattern I see is things get created, then people dig furiously to find references to keep the article. Article creation should work the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah it's going to be hard. I can't see any good reference for the crew which should be essential. Anyways it's not like I created it, I just trimmed three articles and storied it to a new article title and along with a few additions. Unfortunately they never had sources to begin with. I just added one. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: File:Barry Stevens in 2009.jpg

FYI - full form permission has been emailed by owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. :-) Pbgiv (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your peculiar skill set

Hammersoft, I have a problem with a newbie who keeps uploading images without proper copyright permissions, etc., and then including them within the Tim Tebow article. Given your specialized interests in these matters, i thought you might want to handle this little problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letting the ravenous dog out of the cage? :) I'll have a look. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "Cry 'havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copyvio. That this foul deed shall smell above wikipedia. TinEye Reverse Image Search is your friend. I told it to look for this image's direct URL and it found matches. Tagged it with {{db-f9}}, and notified the uploader. That should end it. If it doesn't, I'll take further action. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Big Dog. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought of my self as an annoying little yappy dog, one finds attached to the hem of your new pants, and which you punt into the nearest water garden. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting self-image. I was raised by German shepherds, so I have my own issues, including the overwhelming need to protect members of the pack and a fondness for red meat. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

testing

This is a test

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of hammersoft at 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (testing) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Removed icons

I noticed that you removed the icons for the connecting transit systems from Template:Yonge-University-Spadina Line Map with the notation Fair use media not permitted in templates on July 1st. I was wondering what the difference is between their use there, and their use on all of the route diagrams for the London (England) Transport lines? Thank you in advance for clarifying this for me. Useddenim (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logos for Toronto-area transit corporations are used in London, English transport lines? That doesn't seem right. Can you give an example? –xeno^talk 15:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're talking about File:London Overground logo.svg and similar? It's at Commons and listed as "{{PD-textlogo}}". In fact the Via rail, Go, and VIVA logos might qualify for the same. –xeno^talk 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that an image that is tagged as being non-free is not permitted to be used on templates, per WP:NFCC #9. File:VIA Rail Canada Logo.svg, File:GO Transit logo.svg and File:Vivayork.png are all currently marked as being non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

xeno, you have it correct WRT the London Overground (Buses, Underground, etc.) logo. However, somebody needs to do some checking, as the File:London_Overground_logo.svg page claims that it is in the public domain. On the other hand, Copyright & licensing | London Transport Museum says

… the Roundel is also a registered trademark. A licence needs to be obtained from the Intellectual Property Department to reproduce them.
Please note that any unauthorized use of TfL's copyright and trademarks is an infringement of TfL's Intellectual Property and may lead to legal action and other remedies permitted under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988.

which doesn't seem to resolve the issue of using the Roundels on London route diagrams. I think this an instance of <all OK | none OK>, not "some OK, sometimes". Useddenim (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something can be both public domain and trademarked... As for unauthorized use issue... IANAL =) –xeno^talk 17:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so back to you, then, Hammersoft: I don't know about VIVA and VIA, but I believe that the GO logo is sufficiently simple that that it would fall into the "geometric shapes" copyright exclusion. Is this correct? Useddenim (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading the LTM page, I see that the Underground logo (blue bar, red circle, and the word) is copyrighted (copywritten?). How does that affect its use on route diagrams? Useddenim (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno's right; something can be public domain and trademarked. We've previously determined on Wikipedia that such images are 'free enough' for our purposes to be marked as free. Trademark is independent of copyright. Neither can exist, both, or one or the other, on the same work. As to the roundel being copyrighted, the roundel is over 100 years old (see this). It's doubtful a copyright infringement case would gain much ground just on age alone. A defense would probably include the simplicity of the image as well, and threshold of originality. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

We're all good right? I am not disagreeing with your rationale for the image in question but I wanted to point out like images and raise the issue of "remix" in relation the license vs what is being said overall. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, WP:VP and WT:NFC would be good places to raise those issues. I attempted to clarify Wikipedia's stance, and failed. Feel free to seek clarification at those places. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non free over-use

Hi, can you please write in details what "excessive or improper use of copyrighted material" is on Peniston's article. Do you mean audio-samples? --Benuliak (talk) Benuliak 18:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of it, but not all of it. First, all of the audio samples lack a fair use rationale for this use, failing WP:NFCC #10c. Second, it's unlikely that most (in fact probably nearly all or all) could have a rationale for this article. Including audio samples so liberally doesn't do much to enhance the article. In fact, rather the opposite. If you're going to include an audio sample, there needs to be some secondary sources that point to a given audio sample being significant to this performer's overall career (as opposed to significant from a particular album). Second, there are several promotional shots and album covers which, although having rationales for this use, area quite unnecessary except for decorative purposes. What, specifically, about each image is crucial the the understanding of this article about this performer? Most of these images aren't even referenced. If the article text reads the same without the image, the image needs to go. Third, the amount of non-free media on this article has skyrocketed recently, landing it at #4 on Wikipedia's list of articles with an unusually high number of non-free files. If you're wanting to have an article to have so much non-free media that it makes the top 50 of that list, much less the top 5, you need a VERY, VERY good reason. You should really take a look at featured articles in this arena, such as Audioslave, Black Francis and Kate Bush. You can see many more at Wikipedia:FA#Music. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I was using as a good template for my files Madonna's songs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ExpressYourselfSample.ogg), which noone seemed to highlight as wrong. Anyway, I have updated a fair use rationale for all the audio samples as proposed by (for example) Kate Bush. Also I have moved the audio samples directly to a particular song's article (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Got_a_Love_Thang), so only 5 audio samples appear now within CeCe Peniston article. As for the rest, in fact every article text reads the same without the image, so don't really know what reason for including also a picture to an article is considerent as relevant. The same for audio samples. What else reason as discussing a song may be the best one to attach also an audio sample of such song. And as for the last, all the images in Peniston's article have been referenced, with exception of only one that I have fixed in the mean time, so this should be OK now too, hope. Let me know your thoughts, or advice if anything needs to be fixed, please. Thanks. Benuliak (talk) Benuliak 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice? Try taking it through WP:GA and see what happens. It's still too much. All of the non-free images but the PTA card have as purpose in their rationales as being "header: (etc)" none of them are in the header, and the purpose in many cases is so verbose as to defy reading. The PTA membership card is itself pointless. The point is, she's an ambassador for the PTA and that is carried by the text. Much of the remaining non-free content still needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to update purposes of the left pictures as being "article", but it seems that "header" keeps appearing along no matter I updated. The PTA membership badge is might "useless", but it is one of those few free pictures actually that may be published without any prior approval, and it also promotes a good thing, I guess. Anyway, I am discussing with Peniston's producers to obtain some good pictures, so after I will replace them by more interesting ones.

I went throught the Kate Bush article as proposed, and at my best will I didn't find any additional reason the author(s) of her article may had to include the audio samples of her songs (one of those, in total seven, even for the song that didn't either chart in fact, so.. No offence, I respect Bush as one of the greatest music legends myself, but at this point I would question at least her authors too). And by advice I meant that as I unfortunately am not a native english speaker, it usually takes me really much of effort to keep an eye on all available templates without losing the track and I still may miss some important detail. Never mind, I will do my best to go through it. Thanks for keeping an eye on my job, it helps me to progress. Benuliak 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I just found out that I wasn't updating all article, but "summary" section, so that is why "header" kept appearing. Now it is ok, I got it Benuliak 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

conflict of interest

you recently commented on my posts concerning Advizor Solutions citing a conflict of interest. If the information is presented in an objective and unbiased manner, what is the problem? Even if the submitter of the information possibly has a connection with the company in question, wouldn't this individual be the best person to be posting information about the company since they would presumably have access to the most reliable information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnaby21 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the opposite. A person internal to an organization is, from an encyclopedia view, one of the worst people to be posting information about the organization. Wikipedia depends upon secondary sources as its main source of information. An organization's own publications are a primary source, not a secondary one. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources for further information about types of sources. Since an organization really can only produce primary source information about itself, it's a poor source of information on an article about itself. Wikipedia strives towards maintaining a neutral view. A person within an organization can not help but be biased, even unintentionally. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest covers much of this. You will note that the last version of the article you touched and the version that it is now are radically different. Compare: your version and the current version. Your version was gutted to reduce it down to a neutral article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Thank you for your advice. If there is not alternative photo,is such a crime to use it at a list? Some of them were already in use, before my edits. Thank you Greco22 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no alternative photo (i.e. free license alternative), then no you may not use a non-free one in this list. Even if the image is used elsewhere on the project, this usage is not supported. Per our m:Mission, we strive to keep the use of non-free content to as little as possible while still serving our purpose. If someone must see an image of a particular prime minister, they can go to that prime minister's article. The use is not necessary to this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oups!sorry i didnt notice sofoklis venizelos was non-free Greco22 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rurouni Kenshin no. 2

Hi! In regards to Talk:List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters - I waited for community input on a consensus (individuals had given individual opinions on which images should go) on which RK images should be removed. To my knowledge there was no process that lead to an overall consensus on which images should be removed.

So what should I do? Should I bring the issue up again, or should I just start removing images immediately? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plow ahead. It might generate some controversy, but be bold. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright - I decided to remove a few. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From 12 to 9. Personally, I like to see 5 or less well selected images. There's no guideline for that. But, I don't tend to do anything if there's 5 or less. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now down to 6. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

If that's the case and you just removed all of Hollyoaks images. Take a look List of EastEnders characters (2009).RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of articles out there that are in violation of that guideline. Have a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files. It's slow work, but that report is slowly being whittled down. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you would advice no images be used in lists? I thought few were fine. Isn't the guideline a suggested one anyway?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cast image, or an image that shows several characters at once (and not a user created montage at that) are often ok. Per character images are not in most cases. Cases where they might be appropriate is when being used for the key, highly visible, frequently portrayed characters. That's usually decided among some discussion. In cases where per character images are just splattered across the page, then yes I nearly always remove everything, as it violates WP:NFLISTS. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Kurosawa {{non-free}}

Thanks for that. I am double-checking with DCGeist about whether the removal was really "inadevertent" - I think Dylanexpert may have the wrong end of that (and several other) sticks. In the meantime, you might wish to chip in at Talk:Akira_Kurosawa#Non-free_use_images so a consensus can develop around image use in this article. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft Talk News: Everyone is a vandal (well, except administrators!)

Recently, there's been a debate about protecting "high risk" templates preemptively (see debate). I read that and couldn't help but think what in hell is Wikipedia coming to?

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (*)." * - offer not valid to non-administrators. That's what the main page should say. We've developed a class system here. Administrators have been trusted with access to certain tools. That policy doesn't say administrators are trusted editors. Yet, that's exactly what has happened. More than 8,000 templates are now fully protected. ~1700 articles are fully protected.

What's worse is the insidious notion that we must preemptively protect lest the unwashed masses cause damage to Wikipedia's credibility. So we must protect the project by preemptively protecting "high risk" templates? Why not preemptively protect featured articles? Oh wait, we've tried that before. Why not preemptively protect the top 1000 most visited articles on the project? The same rationale would apply there. Those are the most visible components of Wikipedia. Shouldn't we protect them?

Wikipedia came out of nothingness because of the bold idea that the masses could be trusted to create a great work. The idea was ridiculed, scoffed at, thrown in the dirt as a sociological oddity. It couldn't create something good, right? We of course know the answer to that. Yet now, we turn against that very bold notion and so no, the masses CAN'T be trusted. They can cause grave harm, damage our reputation, vandalize too many things at once. They just can't be trusted anymore.

Enter the age of trench mentality in Wikipedia. Now that the project is becoming 'mature', the defense of what has been created becomes more important to the entrenched oligarchy than the very bold notion on which it was founded.

My userpage notes "This user is not an administrator and is therefore probably trying to disrupt the project, or is at least grossly incompetent." How prophetic. The entrenched mentality is now that this is true. I am not an administrator, therefore I am not to be trusted. Welcome to the new ~~Wikipedia~~ Wikistatic, the project that once embraced the masses and now despises them. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm picking a fight with you, but three reversions should be a sign that your post is not needed or wanted in the discussion. Thanks.--intelati1^(Call) 19:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not. I'm not angry with you, or anything of the kind. I do strongly question why others are permitted to post their opinions in the thread vis-a-vis this protection schema, but I am not. I find that odd. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to your question on WP:AN/I. The noticeboard is not the place to discuss that. Thats the only reason that your comments are being deleted.--intelati1^(Call) 19:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the entire thread discussing the protection of templates. My comments were directly related to that thread. It wasn't some off the cuff remark having nothing to do with the thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno actually restored your comments, :/ closed the discussion and Suggested a new place for discussion. Sorry.--intelati1^(Call) 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If I read correctly, some people were concerned about visibility of the report anyway. Seems it would make sense to redact the entire thread and also to remove the report from non-admin view. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But protecting large swaths of the project from potential vandalism sets a standard that inverts what this project started on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going along with the community consensus. After two reverts by people other than myself I assumed that was the right thing to do. Now, I kind of see where your coming from.--intelati1^(Call) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, not looking for acolytes to my philosophy :) (said with all friendly intent). I just seem to be running into an awful lot of things lately where regular editors are treated as trash, not permitted access, etc. I was once involuntarily given rights [31] without any associated request to me. In so doing, I was called a "trusted user". I don't need additional rights to prove I am a trusted user. What Wikipedia was founded on was the idea that everyone could contribute, and we trusted the masses unless they proved they weren't trustable. That's been inverted now. "You're just a regular user?!?!?! With 18,000 edits?!?!?! OMG! WTF! There's something seriously wrong with you!" So, I now wear the only title I care to have, "editor", with pride. It's the only title I should need to work on the project. But, even that's not true now. Several times now I've run into templates with blatant NFCC violations on them, sometimes put there by the "trusted" administrators, and had to beg for a 'trusted' user to fix it. That's backwards. So this thread comes along on WP:AN/I where the general consensus seems to be that yeah, we need to preemptively protect the project from the unwashed masses who are out to get us...yet it was those very unwashed masses who made this project in the first place! The irony is both humorous and disgusting at the same time. So I felt compelled to post to shift thinking on the topic. I couldn't do that with one or two sentences, as some before me in the thread attempted to do. But, then I was erased off the thread. And on Wikipedia goes, down into the sewer. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rant, completely agree with you there. But extra tools to make life easier always help. :D--intelati1^(Call) 19:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis le grande ranter :) I don't want the tools, and there's no way in hell I'd pass RfA anyway, even though I've never done anything to damage the project. The fact I can't pass RfA despite the latter fact is proof enough to me the tools aren't worth it. I've been able to do what I like to do without having to have the tools in most cases. I just find it annoying that I am considered an untrusted user because I'm "just" an editor. Without editors we'd have NOTHING here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that your comment was interesting but off-topic (though removing it was inappropriate per WP:TPO). Topics that were discussed on that long thread included:

The disruption caused by the protection spree
Was HJM's protection spree consistent with the HRT policy document at that time (answer: unclear)
Was HRT policy as then-documented itself consistent with actual WP practice and consensus (answer: no)
What to do to get HJM to stop and respond (he eventually did)
What to do with the mass protections (revert the protections)
What to do about the HRT policy discrepancy (fix it)
How to revert the protections (multiple people in a coordinated effort with automation assistance)
Announcement of discusstion at WT:HRT proposing new clarifications in HRT policy to prevent similar disruption in the future
Discussion of whether the disruption at hand really had anything to do with HRT policy unclarity, and if not, what other policy change to make instead to prevent recurrences.

You can see that all those issues were really addressed to the immediate incident. Your post was really more about general wiki-philosophy and would make more sense in the WT:HRT thread where template protection practices are being discussed.

67.119.14.196 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. It will be interesting to see how many "high risk" templates are protected a month from now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comic sources

I just created a discussion that you may be concerned about. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Volume & Issue. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TruckCard

Sorry if I stepped on your toes there, I was getting edit conflicted all over the place at ANI and then on his talk page. I didn't see any point in allowing him to post another long series of meaningless unblock requests, I think it was my third try at making that edit when it finally went through, I had already revoked his talk page a few minutes before that but there was a flurry of editing going on there and I couldn't get through. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. The end result was fine. I was hoping to have him avoid another pointless unblock request. You made it definitive :) Works for me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian flags

Because you were involved in the deletion discussion of List of Canadian flags, please join the discussion at Talk:List of Canadian flags#Municipal flags. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no rationale?

Re: this edit, you said "Also no rationale, per WP:NFCC #10c". They all seem to have rationales. What am I mis-understanding? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (P.S. Thanks for the WP:NFG link.)[reply]

First off, using non-free images in a gallery violates WP:NFG, which is descendant from WP:NFCC #8 regarding significance. We don't use non-free imagery unless absolutely necessary, and the use of such images in a gallery doesn't pass that metric. Second, WP:NFCC #10c requires "a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item". Not sure now what I was seeing. I think I did a review and found some missing. Now I do a spot review, and found not missing. I don't know. Regardless, they're not acceptable in that use under WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:ANI

I appreciate that. I've just noticed the thread has been reopened, and left a message there just after you left the message on my talk page. I'd really rather this whole thing wasn't happening, but someone seems fairly intent that it does. J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry- I do appreciate template messages, I just make a habit of removing some of them. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I just got confused. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Image

Hi! Okay, I understand it now. About the OTRS ticket: I didn't want to falsify it but the Jobbik logo had it in the Hungary WIkipedia that it can be used on the spaces of Wikimedia projects but you have to ask for a permission if you would like to use it outside Wikipedia. I don't know how OTRS system works so I thought it is also available for Englsih Wikipedia. If not then I won't use the picture again (you can see the same OTRS permission in huwiki.) And also we have a permission from Jobbik that all files from www.jobbik.hu can be used in Wikipedia (you can see it here:hu:Sablon:Jobbik-engedély). If I've done something wrong then I am really sorry. Laci.d (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Just don't use that logo outside of an actual article. I'm sorry to jump to conclusions about the OTRS ticket. From time to time I see people try to get around an image not being free by claiming an OTRS ticket exists for the release. In this case, I saw an OTRS ticket that predated the uploading of this image. Further, an OTRS ticket almost always has to do with the free release of an image, not a non-free image. As to the status of this image, it must still be considered non-free. Whether someone gives us permission to use the image on Wikipedia or not is irrelevant. We have two classes of image; non-free and free. If they are free, people are free to use them for whatever purpose they like, including commercial opportunities. Sports clubs rarely, if ever, release their logos under such a license. This particular image isn't 'free enough', in that we're not free to use it for commercial opportunities. Therefore, it must be marked as non-free. As a result, it may not be used on a userpage. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable rationale

Hammersoft, I know you're a fair-use guru. Would you take a look at this image's copyright info? I came across it in {{hangon}} patrolling and the reason looks implausible. Best regards, and good to talk to you, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI appears to have come from http://www.heartresearch.com.au/Current-appeal.html –xeno^talk 20:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit for bit copy taken from http://celleng-tech.com/index/adsc.html. I saw your pickup from tineye to that page, but I think the original source is the one I noted. I've marked it as a copyvio on Commons. It should be deleted shortly. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thing with this. Creator, same one who put up the image, went to some trouble to write a fairly detailed article in his user space, moved it into mainspace, then after someone put some general maintenance tags on it, blanked it and put a {{db-spam}} tag on his own creation. The things newcomers do... Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, odd. Oh well. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ansar_logo.JPG

Is everything ok now ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiwiki (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New essay

Following the recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal to the most common misunderstandings. At the moment it's in quote form, however at some point, I'll convert it to prose. Anyway, I've quoted you, hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a step in the right direction. I see so many arguments repeated in fair use debates. What changes is only the name of the file. Another one that gets lost on many people is the concept of gratis versus Libre. I'm in a debate with someone now who doesn't understand this concept. Free = free to some people, and they lack understanding that there are different kinds of free. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:61 Pm 02 large.jpg

The image is supposed to go in the promethium article which uses an infobox that is transcluded. What is the solution for using a copyrighted image? Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use it on the article, not the template. We don't allow the use of non-free images on templates, per WP:NFCC #9. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fine, but is there a way to transclude the information through the template? due to consistencies, all element articles have a picture of the pure element in the infobox. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'll have to invoke the template from the article rather than having it in the template. Frankly, I don't really understand the purpose behind a single use template. Just copy/paste the code into the article, and include the image in the article. You don't have to have a template to have an infobox. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prometium

Although technically templates, element infoboxes are merely parts of those articles designed to reduce the code clutter. Discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements please if you want to pursue the policy. This is exactly the case of exemptions. Materialscientist (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Exemptions are for "manag[ing] questionable non-free content", not for making the code prettier on an article. If non-free images must be included via template then I'm sure a template guru can figure out how to rewrite that one to allow for an <includeonly> tag. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with VernoWhitney. There's simply no need to have a template hosting a non-free image. There are technical ways around that. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does <includeonly'> make thinks not go onto the template but does onto the trasclusion? Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you figured it out. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shiny Tunes

Whether it's policy or not, these album covers are legally uploaded and licenced in accordance to wikipedia policy. The only reason there are so many covers on that article is because there are no seperate articles for the individual Big Shiny Tunes albums, therefore I uploaded all those images to that one article. I'll also add that I spent a long amount of time finding the best possible sources of these album covers and uploading them to the article, and I'm not going to just let all my hard and legitimate work to this site be thrown away, no matter what the argument is. I understand and respect your point, but is it really that serious that I've legally uploaded these album covers? Is there not something of more importance to be taken care of on this site? Besides, there are dozens, hunderds, and likely thousands of more non-free images uploaded to different articles, and I don't see anyone complaining about them. Please just leave the article as I edited it to my best possibility and concern yourself with something more important. MatthewGoodfan101 21:49, 7 October 2010

MGFan, everyone here gets to work on whatever they want, so long as they are not being disruptive. I could just as easily ask you why you are messing around with album covers when there are so many other problems that need work. Part of editing here is sometimes watching your hard and legitimate work get thrown away - it is a wiki, not a personal blog after all. That may not be a nice thing to consider but it is reality, and not worth going to war over. These are just images of the same basic design, tweaked a bit in each release but not offering anything new and compelling to public understanding of the topic. Sorry you put all that work in, but there it is... Franamax (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewGoodfan10: First, a huge THANK YOU for taking the time to talk about this issue. Now, to your points: Franamax is quite correct. (1) The argument that there are no separate articles for these albums, and therefore this one article needs to host all these covers has been used many, many times. That argument actually works to prove the point that the images shouldn't be allowed. If these albums are so insignificant in their own right that they haven't had secondary sources written of them (and thus do not have a separate article), then there's no strong reason to include an album cover due to its insignificance. It's very hard to justify including non-free images for non-notable subjects. The entire set of releases is worthy, which is why it has an article, and including an example album cover is appropriate. But not one for every release. (2) The amount of work you spent on uploading these images is quite irrelevant. It's not that your time and effort aren't respected. It's that if we treated everyone's contributions as inviolable, we'd have impossibly bad articles. Please look right below the "Save page" button when you're editing a page. You'll note it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited ... then do not submit it here." If you're not prepared to have your work changed, replaced, deleted, etc. then do not add your work here. This is a collaborative project. You do not own any aspect of it. (3) Editors are free to work wherever they choose on the project, so long as they abide by our policies and guidelines. Whether I choose to work on the most insignificant aspect of the project, or the most significant aspect is irrelevant. Paraphrasing Isaac Asimov, there is a single Wikipedia project, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere. I'm sorry you want me to go away and focus somewhere else on the project, but it's not going to happen. Either you learn to work with your fellow editors without attempting to own an article and without wishing they'd go away, or you will find yourself continuously frustrated here. (4) As of today, there are 372,563 non-free images on Wikipedia. We monitor them closely for compliance with our policy on using them. One of those ways is that we watch for articles with an unusually high number of non-free files on them (see this report). This article's use of non-free files as you would like it to be would place it in the top 30 of all articles on Wikipedia for how many non-free files it uses. There are 3,435,191 articles on Wikipedia right now. What makes this article so special that it needs to be among the top 30 of all articles for how many non-free files it uses? The answer is nothing, because we don't permit this use. Lastly, several people besides myself are telling you this. If you continue to edit war in an attempt to force these images back onto the article you will be blocked from editing. I suggest you learn and understand our policies and guidelines governing the use of non-free images. If you continue to edit in abeyance of those policies and guidelines, you will not be editing here for much longer. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:0 Kaspersky

I just noticed this brand new userpage with a slew of non-free images, but I'm not sure what the best approach is or how long it would take a bot to remove them, so I figured I'd let you know about it as you have more experience taking down inappropriately used images than I do. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! It was like watching twinkling stars while all the images finished loading and filling in! Wow. Just wow. I think this one calls for a nuke from orbit. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should've warned you about just how big "a slew" was. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Not a problem. I did nuke it. It was just too many to sort out. Odd situation; only two edits to the account, both to that userpage. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Interrupting

Hello! You'll seem to delete the Coat of Arms of Canada. Couldn't wait huh? Did you read Permission? You just wait Monday. If you Interrupting my page, You'll be deleted and Banned! P.S. This the threat message. User:Umutcan123456. —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As I noted, I don't need your permission. Neither does anyone else who finds non-free content on your userpage in violation of our WP:NFCC policy on the issue, as I explained. Your threat to have me banned is utterly empty, but thanks for the attempt. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Wiki Project

Thank you for your comments on the EE project page. As I said in my reply there, the members of that particular project are usually fairly keen to make sure rules are met. Sometimes, we may know something is not strictly correct and will leave it - under the condition that if/when it gets questioned then it will have to be corrected. But mostly we try to make the articles in accordance with guidelines. Of course, there was a bit of a "oh bugger" reaction to what you did - but that stems from the work that gets put in to articles in the first place. Finding images can be tricky, so having them removed is not one's preference. But as I say, the members of the EE Wiki Project will, in the end, follow the guidelines - just needs to be pointed out and given a bit of a discussion so everyone can have their 2 cents. I imagine this is how WP was supposed to work, especially the Projects, but inevitably people get territorial: having a say doesn't mean getting your way. Anyway, all the best. As I said in the post, please in future don't hesitate to bring up problems on the talk page for EE related articles.... you'll get a "fair hearing"! :) ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Yeah, I think that is how it was supposed to work, but largely it doesn't. Sad really. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders#Images in lists again.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another questionable fair use explanation

For consideration with your particular expertise: Former_human.jpg. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the image for deletion on Commons. The source does not have a license compatible with Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought it looked funny. Thanks, too, for the support at my failed RfA. I appreciate it very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made an honest attempt to help. Much of what transpired was out of the public eye. For anyone to judge you negatively for things they couldn't see was wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your Talk page

Hammersoft, How i can make a talk page like yours, with these notice....--Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit User talk:Binukalarickan/Editnotice --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it on en.Wiki pedia, but with the same logic i tried on Ml.Wikipedia also...Its not working there...Can you give some idea--Kalarickan | My Interactions 12:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried it [32], and it worked fine. Just click on the link I made above to Editnotice, add what you want, and click save. Then if you edit your regular talk page, you'll see the notice near the top of the page. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!, its working fine here, but not working in Ml.wikipedia (Malayalam Wikipedia)...--Kalarickan | My Interactions 18:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Probs..I will try with some Ml.Wiki admins...hope they heard about this..--Kalarickan | My Interactions 07:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(just happened to stop by the talk page (I stalk Verno's talk) and saw the question when I went here) That is because it is not installed on that Wiki, whereas the extension is installed on the English Wikipedia. The edit notice feature is a extension to the MediaWiki software. I hope this helps. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYA

FYA Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 07:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious?

Please see File talk:DMDK flag.PNG. On reflection, I disagree with your "it's obvious" assertions in both the speedy tags. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is in use by the party. There isn't much disputing that, is there? Is there any reason to believe the uploader is the author other than some vague dates on web pages? If there's a claim to be made, it should be submitted to m:OTRS. Otherwise, we're depending on the word of the author. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FoP list images

You have been involved in discussing non-free images in lists on the NFC talk page but yesterday I came by List of the tallest statues in the United States and List of statues by height which include images of modern (post-1978) US statues not covered by the freedom of panorama exemption per commons:COM:FOP#United States and while those I looked at appear to be freely licenced by their authors they are in fact derivative works and require a fair-use rationale. It seems a pity to decimate List of the tallest statues in the United States which has at least six such images which are on the commons. However, the images are easily justified in an article about the statue but, in my opinion, fail WP:NFLISTS even if the images were put back here where they were originally uploaded.

List of statues by height is a bit more tricky because each country's FoP needs checking. Thoughts? ww2censor (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? :) Less flippantly, the ones that are clear derivatives need to be deleted from Commons. Pull them back here before they're marked for deletion if...IF...the statues are notable enough to sustain their own individual articles. They're not going to be acceptable in a list article. For the statues by height, each case needs to be checked against that link to FOP on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast. Thanks. BTW good luck with the EastEnders list images, ughh! ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've come to an agreement on those, and I'm slowly working through them per request. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one of the images from List of the tallest statues in the United States, after retagging it as non-free [33]. Also, quite a number of the images there are on Commons, and not compatible with Commons licensing due to FOP issues. I've tagged the ones on Commons for deletion and notified the uploaders. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of the others File:9468v.jpg that you tagged is also on the commons as File:Our Lady of the Rockies.jpg, so that will need to be nominated for deletion there too. I'll see what I can do when I get some time. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for deletion on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interestingly enough, after I tagged all those images on Commons a person from Europe de-tagged them, I explained the issue and re-tagged them, and he de-tagged them again, saying they're not obvious cases of copyright infringement. I'm at a loss as to how they are not blatant cases of copyright infringement. I took the issue up at the Commons administrator noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! One of those detaggers, let me try. I am not sure the admin noticeboard is the best way to go; I did not notice your request. A formal deletion nomination would seem better even though we know that some of those take forever to get done. Let me know where you nom them, if you do. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to nom them. They're all blatant cases, and none of them are de minimis to the image they are in. I'm just hoping an administrator steps in and clarifies the issue for the de-tagger. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not looked at my commons watchlist when I posted above but now see your posting and have added my 2¢ of support. ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please note that I was not letting you know of that posting to elicit your support, though it is appreciated. Mainly, I just want an administrator to educate him on this issue, since my attempts fell on deaf ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position but would have seen it eventually anyway and with my interest in image copyright would likely have commented anyway. We shall see what happens. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorely disappointed with the contributors at Commons. There's quite a number of people here on this project who have little or no clue about copyright and how it works with this project. I can understand that. This project isn't mainly about images. On Commons? I'm just stunned. Apparently, we now have to debate for months on end as to whether a statue erected post 1978 in the U.S. is free of copyright for photographic image purposes. 1923-1978, I could maybe see a case, but it's incredibly backwards to think we have to prove something isn't free of copyright before deleting it over there. The casual disrespect for copyright is not something I expected to find or have previously found on Commons. I used to have faith in that project. Now, I'm not so sure. No, scratch that. I am sure. I don't have faith in it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..?

It seems a lot of people aren't happy with you being so rude to them. You were blocked I checked you see for edit warring. Could you try to be nicer maybe? Thanks Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 19:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That block (a) happened close to two years ago and (b) was done by an administrator who was forcefully removed from adminship, who applied a block to me after I'd already stepped away from the conflict and requested help from a noticeboard. I.e., not a legitimate block. If you have particular concerns regarding civility with me, please feel free to bring them to my attention. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cookie) Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Accepted

Under current Wiki policy, I can't say you were unathorized to remove the fair use image from my talk page. I didn't realize the image fell into that catagory. However, I would request in the future you leave a brief description of your edition on my talk page. I shouldn't need to reasearch the history to find your edit. Just curiouse, of all the talk pages on Wikipedia, how did you find that particular image on my page? Have we dialoged before? HBCALI (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have edit summaries is to convey information on why an edit was done. As to how I found the violation, this report is updated daily showing violations of our WP:NFCC #9 policy. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very horrible things...

...are forseen in your future

sincerly,

the fortune cookie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.44.48 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

Thanks for clarifying the entire "non-free" matter with me some months back.
Your role certainly requires a lot of patience.
Your <Keeping a Cool Head> Barnstar goes here.

(This message is a counterweight to some others you evidently attract.)
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and much appreciated :) A bit ironic though, as I lost patience yesterday over on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but did you get blocked when you lost your patience? No sir.

So it couldn't have been all that bad. Varlaam (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look into this image.. potential false copyright

This user has a ton of violations of copyright, I don't understand why he's even allowed to upload anything after repeated offenses from false copyright claims and placing images that are not his own as public domain uploading to wikipedia.. can you look into this image please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MiamiHeat2010Preseason.jpg

Thanks in advanced. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found an online source to show where this image is copied from. That said, the editor obviously has problems with copyright. You might want to take this issue up at WP:CCI. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User logo

Please tell me who are you? What do you mean by "our" or "we"?. If you continue to harm my editions unfairly, I will voluntarily leave Wikipedia project!

Note: Please use a clear English. I Mean use sentences with a meaning. Not the ones you include like that:

"Whether or not it can be used freely or not according to you is irrelevant. If you believe it is free, then make that case on the image description page, in which case it will subsequently appear at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. In the meantime, while it it marked as non-free, it MUST adhere to all aspects of WP:NFCC, including #10c. I am, once again, reverting you. Please be aware that upholding our non-free content is not subject to WP:3RR restrictions, whereas you can and will be blocked from editing for continuing to violate our policies. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)"

Thank you. --Red Devil 41 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page; let's keep it one place. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Saruha

Looks like our uncommunicative friend is back as an IP, undoing others' edits. Accordingly I've nominated two navboxes he's created for deletion. If you watch these articles, you may want to keep an eye on who's editing. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Disappointing behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:M. C. Escher

Thanks – I'll try to actually read the image page next time I use a picture.

Can't think of an insult right now. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Keep up the good work. Quantumor (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Maybe you can help instead of deleting it? --Vinie007 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have helped you, by referring you to the appropriate places to educate yourself on the issue. WP:FURG should provide you with all the help you need. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divas of Disco: Live

Hi, i reduced the size of covers in the article, is that what you meant? Thanks Uzerakount (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a separate issue. The size of non-free images should be reduced as much as possible and still maintain encyclopedic purpose. For example, File:Divasofdisco dvd.JPG is excessively large. The issue I was addressing with the {{non-free}} tag is that there is too much non-free content on the article. A judicious reduction of the use should be made. Failing that, it might be stripped to just one; the original cover. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Kaimin Logo

I read your comment and I am a bit confused as to how I make the logo available for free-use. I am very new at this and we are creating wiki articles for a class and they did mention how to fix this mistake or where to go. I want to keep everything proper and not repeat the mistake. If you could help me, I would greatly appreciate. -Pre3mptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pre3mptive (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, File:UMont clocktower logo.png is not and will not be free use. It must adhere to all parts of WP:NFCC. Second, its use on Montana Kaimin is superfluous; there's already a logo on the article, which clearly identifies this entity. Third, the logo that IS on the article is improperly licensed, and on Commons and should be removed from Commons, uploaded here, a {{non-free logo}} tag added to it, and a non-free rationale for each use of it applied to it (see WP:FURG). Hope that helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COT image

Greetings,

I'm new to Wikipedia, and don't quite understand what I've done wrong by using that image. I don't wish to argue with you, but only to understand what it is you are pointing out to me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qloendorf (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every use of a non-free image must have a separate, specific non-free rationale. This is required by WP:NFCC #10c, as I noted in my edit summary. To write a rationale, you can read WP:FURG for direction. But really, this image isn't needed in this article. We already know it's University of Montana, and the image doesn't do anything to educate the reader of the article any further. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to remove the image, and re-upload the same image under a 'free use for all' type of license, would that be satisfactory? Or would I still need to write a non-free rationale? However, I'd like to keep the picture in the article for the time being, until something better can take its place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qloendorf (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you uploaded the image under a free license, that would be a copyright violation. It ISN'T free. Using this image in the way you want is counter to our m:Mission. Don't use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. This is my image. I took the picture. I am not violating any copyrights by having this picture on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qloendorf (talk • contribs) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're talking about File:UMont clocktower logo.png, you didn't upload it and the image isn't yours to license as you will. If you're talking about File:CollegeOfTechnology1.jpg, I haven't touched that image or removed it from the article, and it's already freely licensed by you so there's no need to re-upload it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you individual!

You are a fine example of Darwinian evolution - you have found a niche for yourself! Brilliant! I want to thank you for removing from my user page a picture of the Starchild, from a Space Odyssey. It was definitely an improvement. Individuals such as you and I are always an endangered species and we should salute each other whenever we glimpse our likeness ghosting through the primordial slime. Ave atque vale! McZeus (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great picture - I've now stolen it for my user page. Keep cruising, Obe Wan Kanobe! McZeus (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sometime ago, you and I engaged in a heated argument over image policy as it related to images in the user namespace. I have since realized that you were performing the thankless task of ensuring compliance with Wikipedia’s various policies on the issue. You were only doing your job. This realization came to me awhile ago — and still does, repeatedly — when I found (find) myself beating my head against a wall trying to explain to editors the need for verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) when adding content to articles, especially biographies of living persons. (Just take a look at this page starting here and continuing to the bottom of the page! Oh, and here too.)

My thankless task is the occasional recent changes patrol. Your thankless task is continually dealing with our non-free image policy. Now, I appreciate the kindred nature of our work here at Wikipedia and thus, again, I’m sorry for the stress I caused you back in early 2008. — Spike Toronto 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for the apology, but (second) as you now know an apology isn't necessary; just people understanding our policies is enough. You've transformed into a more seasoned editor now, and you now are speaking from the other side of the fence. The whole thing makes a bunch more sense from this side of the fence. Thanks for thinking of me :) Your job won't get any easier. That's zero consolation, I know, but your effort to police BLPs is crucial. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Wall image (File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg)

The Israeli courts have actually ruled the image is pretty much PD (somewhat like eminent domain on the image). I'm no expert, but see http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections01/eannouncements.htm. -- Avi (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the image remains marked as non-free. If you or someone else can sustain a reasonable assertion that it's PD on the image's description page, then fine. In the meantime, it was lacking rationales per WP:NFCC #10c (and still is for some uses) and was being used decoratively, rather than attempting to sustain discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thanks for your message. As you probably noticed, I wasn't the person who uploaded the File:DavisClevelandasFlynnJones.jpg image, but I created the Davis Cleveland bio page, so I was happy too see someone else had added the photo. I know there are strict rules about adding photos on Wikipedia, which was the reason I didn't add one when I originally created the page, but I checked and saw this photo was from disneychannelmedianet.com so that was the reason I didn't remove it from the article when it was first added and also the reason I linked back to the photo again after you removed so it could be reviewed before it was deleted for simply not being used on any pages. I've been in email contact with disneychannelmedianet.com Photo Licensing department in the past asking about other photos from their bio pages, and they said it was fine to use the photos for Wikipedia, and if there were any questions Wikipedia could contact them to verify. I don't know the rules about posting contact information on Wikipedia (the contact information is actually listed at the link provided with the Davis Cleveland photo), so can you tell me - Is there a "correct" way I should provide the contact information that was given to me if Wikipedia wants to verify with Disney's Licensing department? Or is this type of photo always disallowed by Wikipedia with absolutely no exceptions regardless of Disney's willingness to allow the photos to be shown? Sorry to bother you about this, but you obviously know a lot more about this kind of thing than I do, and many of the Wikipedia 'Help' pages are just over my head, so if you can explain it to me in simple terms I'll be very appreciative. Thanks Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use on Wikipedia is essentially meaningless to us. There are plenty of agencies that are quite happy to have us use their photos here. The problem is we are a free content encyclopedia. Images do not fall into a permission to use category here. They are either free licensed, or we use them under terms of fair use. In fact, permission to use is a criteria for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:CSD#F3. So, while they've granted permission to use here, it has no effect on how we treat this image. The image must continue to be marked as non-free. You can ask Disney for release of the photo under a free license. To do that, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. But, the chance they will release their work under a free license is not great. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the information. Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits I reverted

You edited Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/CAN to remove a fair-use image. That template coding only displays the graphic in question at the top of the infobox. (/shieldmain is at the top, /shield generates the graphic for other uses in the infobox.) I reverted your edits because they had the effect of removing a fair-use graphic from articles for which there were valid fair-use rationales. If you have any questions, let me know. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Your edit notice is stupid, so I'll take my 1000 points now and move on.)[reply]

The use of non-free images on templates is strictly forbidden by WP:NFCC #9. Further, the template using that shield caused it to be used 42 times. There are only 5 rationales on the image description page. Per WP:NFCC #10c, every use of a non-free image requires a separate, specific fair use rationale. I am re-removing the shield as it is a direct violation of our policies. Please do NOT restore the image, as it is in violation of policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to consider is that this image, when in use by this template, ranks as the second most used non-free image on the project. See this. Is this image really necessary in order to convey meaning and understanding in the article? It's hard to imagine someone being confused about what article they are on without the buffalo mark. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of points, but graphic is not displayed in the template namespace anymore than a cover photo of a music album being display in an article's infobox is in the template place. The Bison portion of the marker is part of the official highway marker. The main marker at the top of the infobox should contain the marker as it actually appears at the side of the road. If the Manitoba segment of the Canada Roads WikiProject needs to list additional FURs until such time as the rest of the individual marker graphics are created and uploaded, then I'll get them to provide the missing FURs. I won't revert you again, but I strongly disagree with your actions, because I do not believe policy is broken, except that missing FURs can be provided.
  - Well, I'm sorry you feel as you do but the policy is clear and unequivocal. The template you are using could be programmed to invoke, via a flag, a non-free image, but it may not itself have the non-free image. I'm quite sorry. I still fail to see why it is crucial to have the shield with the buffalo on it, making this the second most used non-free item on the project, more so than 375,000+ other non-free items. We can and should do better than this. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do believe it was invoking it. That subtemplate itself did not display it except when called on the appropriate article page. Having said that, 40 some separate graphics have been created so the text superimposition trick is no longer needed. That also means that the blank you created is no longer needed as well. (There's an SVG blank that uses freely-licensed fonts in its creation, to further deal with any copyright issue over the Manitoba wordmark.) I plan on checking back tomorrow to see what others might need creation, and create and upload them. That way the job queue has time to update the usage list. Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unnecessary to create a separate graphic for each. Have the template accept a flag, where the flag is the image you're wanting to use. That's compliant with policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subtemplate was no different with respect to the default Manitoba graphic than British Columbia (All highway markers there are under crown copyright yet, but individual graphics exist). The only difference was that previously, the text was superimposed over the blank. (I will add that it was superimposed in the wrong typeface because the right typeface isn't a normally installed font on computers, and the trick didn't work for 3-character numbers like 10A.) Anyways, what's done is done. There are separate graphics as needed for each individual article. Instead of having one called 41 times and text imposed on top of it, we now have 41 more fair-use graphics. Imzadi 1979 → 17:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which makes things worse. Far better to have one image used correctly. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Hi, I kind of got what u said back in the past about using the sources about the images of where you get them from. Please can u reply more about adding sources to the images.

Also, Im still 12 years so I cant know anything else about wikipedia.

Im sorry Ive been a dead idiot. Trikster87 (Talk)

You're not an idiot. For sources, you should indicate where you obtained a particular image that you are uploading. If you got it from the web somewhere (note that such images are almost always non-free), indicate the web address you took them from. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Falcon 9 upright on pad.jpg

Look, I'm all for deleting things if they don't fit into whatever proper sense of decorum and licensing is the popular mode of this exact moment, decided by committee and rendered neutral to all major religious sensibilities. Be that as it may, this particular image was uploaded around two years ago. Therefore, providing a greater level of contextuality in a proposal for deletion doesn't seem too much to ask for. Let me speak plainly: There was no free content illustrating the object in question in January 2009. Being presented with a blunt semi-automated template suggesting I review the rules is, quite frankly, irritating. Thanks for your concern about the issue, and I hope more free images are now available. --Xaliqen (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you find the required notification template to be annoying. I didn't write it, but I am required to post it. As to the issue of replaceability, there's really no debating this issue. Pump in "Falcon 9" into google images, and there's more than 44,000 results. This vehicle isn't secret, it exists, and it's most emphatically in the public eye. Maybe in 2009 a free image was not obtainable, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. Right now, a free image is obtainable and in fact already exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Non-free images and Hogwarts Staff

Thanks, sorry, I'm new here and didn't know. I added a picture to Hogwarts Staff from Chamber of Secrets. It's a group shot of Professors McGonagall, Sprout, Dumbledore, and Snape. I've seen group shots like this on the page Ministry of Magic, and it says that these are acceptable in the provision or rules you handily linked me to, so is this ok? Thanks and sorry for messing up. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's excellent! Nicely done! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I thought I had a free image this time :/ sorry --฿aous•the•Deacon 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image free or fair-use?

Hi, Hammersoft! I hereby respectfully request your assistance. I would like to upload the top image found here to Theodorick Bland (judge), however, I am unclear as to whether it is a public domain image or merely a fair-use image. More information regarding the painting can be found here. The painter died well over 100 years ago so I thought that might automatically put it in the public domain. Thanks again! Cheers! Location (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The painting itself is in the public domain due to the author's age as you surmised. The frame (even though it's very bare) introduces some lighting/creativity issues, so may ought to be cropped out and the photo straightened, but a faithful representation of the painting alone is clearly PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Verno. It's public domain by way of age if nothing else. The first source you note isn't the best image. The second source you note is much better, and larger even after cropping. I'd take the second source, crop it, upload it, and license it with {{PD-old}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks guys for the speedy reply! Cheers! Location (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at File:Chancellor Theodorick Bland.jpg to see if there is anything else I need to do to give appropriate credit to the creator or owner of the portrait? This is my first upload, so I'm hoping not to screw things up too badly. Thanks! Location (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I would like more opinions on this AFD if you don't mind. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC

So I've been thinking over the discussion surrounding the removal of the Battle of Berlin image and was wondering if you had some thoughts about a wording change to the policy which might help to deter future similar situations. Currently the Enforcement section states: "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". I was thinking that this sentence should explicitly include something about consensus as to whether the rationale is valid or not. Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so. It's implied, but not stated. We've both seen people disagree on that point saying absurdities like "Well, I think I've provided a valid rationale!" --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

For the record: This edit is obviously a preemptive move to further long term plans concerning non free content. As it is a guideline, it is my belief that consensus is developed before individual editors make substansive changes. This is especially true where the guideline may be used to bolster the users position in future arguments over logo usage. I am completely disgusted that an editor would attempt to unilaterally make changes to a guideline to favor their viewpoint of a continuing battle over NFC. Based on the history of this user I would expect: A) an attempt to have the page locked at his version, B) Badgering all other users on the talk page until he gets his way, and/or C) long term revisits or rewording of the page until it fits his view. Oh and of course: Instead of focusing on the guideline changes, all attempts will be made to distract the argument into the problems or evils of editors that get in his way. 184.199.236.20 (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in Elissa (singer)

I seem to be going around in circles with Thamerr (talk · contribs) regarding some non-free images on Elissa (singer). There are three in total; however, I agree with Thamerr that File:Elissa Vogue.jpg conveys useful information beyond the mere scope of text related to her participation in the campaign, which is discussed in the article.

The two I have issues with are File:Elissa 2005.jpg and File:Elissa Tsadaq Bmein.jpg. Thamerr seems to be leaning strongly on NFCC #8, contextual significance, with these images. While the former image shows her holding an award statuette she received, I don't see where anything specific about accepting the award is conveyed by the image that isn't done in the text—there's not, for instance, discussion of her dress or anything else in the image. The latter is a shot of her performing on stage; again, I don't think there is any great contextual significance in the image—and if cameras were allowed at the concert, a free replacement image would be available.

Because you're well-versed with the nuances of NFCC, can I get your opinion on these images? Are they outside the bounds of NFCC, or am I being too narrow in my view of what's allowed as a non-free criterion? —C.Fred (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your assessment on File:Elissa 2005.jpg and File:Elissa Tsadaq Bmein.jpg. I also note that the rationales are confrontational in choice of language. Further, the rationales are very weak. Example in the latter case; "To showcase and demonstrate Elissa's performances", and File:Elissar Zakaria Khoury.jpg doesn't do this? Also, File:Elissa Vogue.jpg needs to go as well. I don't agree with your assessment there. There is exactly one sentence relating to the image in the article prose. Further, if that one sentence is enough then we must have an image from her ad campaign for Corum watches. The rationale on this image is exceptionally weak as well "To showcase and demonstrate Elissa's commercials and advertisements to readers."; nothing specific, nothing notable, just "showcase". If that rationale were sufficient, we could include as much non-free content everywhere we want, because "showcas[ing]" would be enough. No, all three images must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs and machines in the Matrix series

I would like to continue improving the incubated article List of programs and machines in the Matrix series, and I started a discussion requesting comments about what edits should be made so it can be restored in the near future. Since you supported incubation, I invite you to the discussion. It can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??

You don't seem to understand the copyright laws of Bosnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamo (talk • contribs)

You're absolutely right. I have absolutely no clue about the copyright laws of Bosnia, and frankly I don't care about the copyright laws of Bosnia. It has absolutely no relation at all to WP:NFCC, in part because the servers of Wikipedia are located in Florida, and therefore Wikipedia abides by U.S. and Florida law, and in part because the reason the logos are being removed has little to do with copyright law. So, yes, you're right. But, that doesn't change anything with respect to the actions I've been taking. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image use in galleries

Hi Hammersoft,

In regards to hosting a gallery on the Immortal Productions page, would it be more appropriate if the album covers were free content, thus meaning I could still have the album covers as part of the discography?

Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time in delaing with this matter.

Kind Regards,

Shaheedi Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheedi Singh (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the album covers were released under a free license, and proof of that release was provided to the m:OTRS team, then they could be used anywhere, without concern with regards to WP:NFCC or WP:NFG. Understand that releasing the covers under a free license compatible with Wikipedia's goals is irrevocable, and anyone can use the covers for any purpose, including commercial purposes, worldwide, in perpetuity. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hazard Perry Congressional Gold Medal

Sup User:Hammersoft,

I am trying to upload an image of the Congressional Gold Medal issued to Oliver Hazard Perry. These medals are issued periodically from US Congress to certain individuals who have distinguished themselves in one way or another. I have two Options and would like your I/P. Here is the first:Image 1. Non-Gov website of a US Mint Issued reproduction. Can I upload it as PD with {{money-US}}? Here is the second: Image 2. Here the website claims a license but since it is a reproduction of a US Congress issued Medal, can {{PD-USGov-Congress}} apply here or on both? If you are not the one to ask then who? Thanks for the 1000 points! QuAz GaA 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask at WP:MCQ. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y Thanks. QuAz GaA 13:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images tagged with cc-by-3.0

I am sorry: When I uploaded the images, I did not take the time to educate myself on Wikipedia's copyright policies on non-free images, in particular this section, and accidentally broke the rules. I also did not learn what constituted {{cc-by-3.0}}, which I admit was incredibly stupid to not to before tagging my uploads with them. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and I looked at the websites they were from. At least I would have if I hadn't forgotten them. I'm going to assume the cover of such a classic book is copyrighted as well as Malcolm McDowell's classic villain smile, so I will recommend they be deleted. Thanks for saving me from the Time Warner's lawyers,
—AOC25 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images and lists

Look I'll try to be civil, dispite your tone on my talk page. 1: There weren't 15 images, there were 12 (count them). 2: I read WP:NFCC #10c. (again) did not find anything to justify your arbitrary deletion (again) - it limits, does not prevent. 3. I AM abiding by our policies (see 2) and I think we can agree it is ironic when you don't follow our policies yet tell others too. 3. Its also ironic for you to tell other people not to edit war to their preferred version when its clearly your preferred way. 4. Free advice: you see something you're not comfortable with or have questions about, ask! We don't bite and we are willing to work it out, edit wars can be avoid so easily that way, if you ask first, before deleting. 5. Yes, I read the fine print - where is my 1000 points? The Matrix Prime (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific fair use rationale for every use of a non-free item. These images did not have rationales for the use you were attempting. List of characters are rather tightly limited in non-free imagery they can use. Have a look at this, and tell my why this particular article is so exceptional, so unusual that we should grant an exception that would place it in the top 50 of articles in terms of non-free content used? There really isn't any answer to that. If you want to make a case that these articles are somehow special enough that we should grant an exception, then please plead your case at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elsalvador.png

Why was the image removed from various links? Jaime 070996 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the edit summary, the usage fails WP:NFCC #10c which is required, and must be met for each use. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the rationale better now? Thank you.Jaime 070996 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- muy bueno. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gracias. :) Jaime 070996 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft, could you revert your edits please. Thanks. Jaime 070996 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no thanks. You're welcome to restore the images where rationales exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious case of Hammersoft and his disposition on imagery

I'm curious. How did you arrive to your current stance on fair use rationale being overused on Wikipedia. By that I mean, what is your idea of what is enyclopedic, and what is not. What ruler are you using?Leitmotiv (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. Let me be more clear. If secondary sources point to the notability of a particular thing <x>, there's a very high chance such thing is encyclopedic. It's not my metric. It's policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing right?

I've uploaded the image "File:Disney-channel Bulgaria.png" for the Disney Channel Bulgaria article, to resolve the image problem. This is my first uploaded image, so did i did everything right (with passing the policy, I mean)?--Модернатор (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. The image as uploaded is fine, and it now has a proper copyright tag and rationale. But, the image File:Disney Channel wordmark.svg which you added to the article serves the same purpose, and is free. Per WP:NFCC #1, that's the image that should be used, not the non-free one. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia

I understand why the montage has been tagged. What needs to be done to re-introduce the first edition covers to the parent article? Do we need to add the Non-free media use rationale - non-free book cover table for the article or will point-form text suffice? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to introduce all the covers. At most, I think including the cover of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe would be the most we could allow. Is there a compilation box set of all these books? If so, is a picture of that compilation set available from the copyright holder? That would probably be the best route. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are many compilation box sets, but none are of the original editions. I'm not asking for the compilation though but rather for each individual cover as illustrative of the title being discussed.

May I suggest that you change your template that is displayed when editing this page? It is unnecessarily misleading and may confuse new editors. This is particularly important since it seems like the image copyright group is on a tear at the start of the new calendar year. I'd take a screen shot of it and show it to you but I'm afraid that might break a copyright and I don't really feel like getting blocked for such an action. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the seven book covers, independently, would never be supported on that article. I'm sorry. WP:NFLISTS has information regarding that. If there is some copyright holder created montage of the covers, then fine; that's one image. As for the template, I enjoy it. I've had it there for quite a long time, without any complaints. If someone fails to recognize it as humor, they probably fail Wikipedia:Competence is required. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering the question.

I think you're obtuse for not recognizing the difficultly you are introducing to new users whose articles you're currently going around tagging. It very much flies in the face of WP:NEWBIES. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

page removed from my watch list. I will not respond to comments left here any longer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for insulting me! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I'm working on reviving my scanner for NFCC#10c let me know if you are interested and I think you should get back on irc--ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scanner, yes. IRC, no. Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If such a scanner is revived, count me in. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content and templates

Thank you for attention.--PPerviz (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and you think the ABC articles are bad

ABC is nothing when you look into the Nova branded (Nova 91.9, Nova 93.7, Nova 96.9, Nova 100 and Nova 106.9) stations. I've been fighting for the last few months to keep the "programs" out (more of a guide IMHO) but never stays out as it always comes back in another form. Bidgee (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a whack at any schedules. I've been fighting schedules in TV stations for quite a while, and occasionally radio stations. Some people fight against the removal tooth and nail, but guidelines do not support them. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - youve culturally gone to a very soft target in Australian radio or tv - clearly you have not ventured into the real hardcore tv territory -

you aint see nothing - (not a full or comprehensive list - just a clue or two):-

whatever your knowledge of guidelines and policies - hmm you might find some more real isssues there than the Australian ones Satu Suro 09:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo! A target list! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- just a very small and innocuous pimple on the vast and expansive posterior of the general area of fanscruftacea (trans: why write articles when you can create vast lists of red links with flagcruft) - but - if the Australian regional Abc stations are any indicator - ...hmmm SatuSuro 14:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a constant problem. Fancrufters can and often do add good material, but there's so much bad that comes along with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
two examples OkeVision of many Ntv7 (the technicolour goo in the vulnerable spots) - oohh and aarrgh SatuSuro 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Zapped a bunch of schedules. It's a game of Whac-A-Mole. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_30#Per_station_television_schedules, which voiced very strong consensus for removal of schedules. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your taking on the Australian project during a summer break and a generally low edit season might be logistically ok for you - but a year or so ago - the ABC afd would have been blown out of the water by some fairly stringently determined editors (sadly some have left, dropped off or gone into wiki limbo) - your responses on simply what the articles currently show in forms of refs is a bit of a furphy - most are quite defendable as stand alones - regardless of your checking (or not) - cheers Satu Suro 04:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of my checking or not? I checked every single article of the 51 listed. At the time the AfD opened, all but three lacked any secondary sources as I noted. That's not sufficient to stand uncontested. I don't particular care about the timing of the AfD being run, and I'm not going to avoid placing Australian articles for deletion because there's a cadre that will fight to the death to keep them. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nah as always misunderstood - just love the one dimensionality of talk page conversations - as much as anything I am quite nostalgic for when the project was stronger - less cadre than a bunch of intelligent editors - the project is quite weak these days - and there is nothing to do 'to the death' stuff at all - most of the comments I have seen are what I read as 'well lets do something about this issue' - I am not sure where the 'to the death stuff comes from' - (heheh - you should see my current/about to propose notability criteria at the WP:DEATH project viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death#Cemeteries_and_notability) - heheh - cheers Satu Suro 05:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image in Draft on my User Subpage

Hammer, thanks for the oversight of the fair use violation in my article draft 2010--11 Northern Iowa Panthers men's basketball team. No doubt I have read WP:NFCC but it did not sink in. I'll try to keep it in mind if I have another such situation. As it is, I am finding I may have bit off more than I can chew trying to create this page. As a new editor, I have figured out that there are templates and other tools for a lot of things, but I've not yet found enough of them to make editing this page efficient. I suspect I am just too new. --Grandpa jlc (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's really an insane amount of things to know in order to be a proficient, efficient editor here. It's sick, honestly. But, what to do? All we can do is stumble forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once

You have visited something like Ntv7 and keep it on watch - you might find yourself going back for quite a while (if the Indonesian ones are anything to go by) - or even might be worth asking for a level of protection on it - I have reverted for 2 days, your turn now... :) - specially as the ips add as soon as the reverts are done - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=125.162.0.37 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.165.22.53 - cheers Satu Suro 03:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

good - you got it protected - but hey - thats just the start :) Satu Suro 08:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"responsibilities"

I'm afraid you misunderstood the situation on Δ's talk page; you seemed to take the stance that I was criticizing him for not noticing some mistake or omission I had made. I wasn't the image uploader nor the one who added it to the article, so I had no "responsibility" to "shirk" here. I instead stumbled upon the image problem with no history with it or the article, very easily and quickly identified the problem, and fixed it. The NFUR wasn't in compliance with policy only because someone had subsequently moved the article to a new title years after the image was uploaded. So no one was at fault for the NFUR not being correct (unless you want to blame the one who moved the article, but is he then "responsible" for maintaining the image?). And the proper solution was to update the NFUR; removing the image deprived the article of its infobox image (an album cover on an album, one of the least controversial NF uses) and threatened the deletion of the image as an orphan. Δ made the situation worse because of his narrowminded approach. There is no virtue to literal policy enforcement that ignores whether the way in which it's done is the most constructive. Policy enforcement isn't a defense for ignoring the obvious, and no one is entitled to "enforce" it in a way that detracts from article content when there is an easy and obvious way of ensuring policy compliance (as I did) that maintains article content.

To put it another way, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I of course meant generically. Yes, the person responsible for moving the article IS responsible for ensuring image moves are done appropriately too. I'm sorry you think Δ is narrowminded (please read WP:NPA), but what he is doing is 100% within policy, and is precisely the sort of work many others do as well. I again state if you dislike his work in this regard, then seek to get the wording of the policy changed (though what you would change it to I have no idea). Whether or not a violation is obvious or not misses the point. Having to check each and every time is onerous. Before beginning, there's no way to know if the mess to untangle is simple or hard. You're shifting the burden or fixing these problems onto the shoulders of people who enforce the policy. That isn't going to happen unless you change the wording of policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem isn't with how the policy is worded; it's entirely his approach, and I'm well aware that he's not the only one who has an attitude that is completely contrary to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. If a human doesn't need to check if a problem is obvious, then why is a human doing this at all instead of a bot?
  And who are the "people who enforce the policy"? You and Δ seem to speak of them as if they are a distinct group: there are "policy enforcers" and then there is everyone else. I also enforced policy when I corrected the article title in the NFUR, but I enforced it better. That something is "onerous" is not an excuse for doing it half-assed. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the amount of work necessary to do on each problem to determine if it is a problem that is trivial makes enforcement onerous. What you define as 'better' is a matter of opinion. That the image violated policy is a matter of fact. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it's that black and white, then why isn't a bot doing this work? postdlf (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - We had a bot, BetaCommandBot, that did this. Obviously, that's no longer functioning. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I see it was blocked; is there a consensus against a bot doing this kind of image work? postdlf (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sharad_Kelkar_300.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Hello There,

I would try and load personal images but what would be the description as i get confused with all the data when I browse for any information about the same and would be more helpful if I get a step by step guidance by you.

Regards,

Tinasinster (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are step by step instructions available via the "Upload file" link located on the "toolbox" menu on every page, which takes you to Wikipedia:Upload. Please note; these MUST be images you personally took with your own camera, not something you found on the Internet. If you attempt to upload images that are not yours, you will be blocked for violating copyright. We take copyright here very seriously. Please don't presume we can't figure out its not yours. We can, and will. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/parties/mumbai/zee-rishtey-awards-bash/Sharad-Kelkar/photo/5576168/Sharad-Kelkar.jpg

Hello There,

I would like to upload the subject image to the article Sharad Kelkar who is a noted television personality in India. I do not know how to go about the same as I do not have any personal image of Sharad except of those from a website. Please assist.

Regards,

Tinasinster (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not upload that image. If you do not personally own an image, that you took with your own camera, on your own time (not being paid by someone else to do it), then don't upload it. It's that simple. We will not accept copyrighted photos of living people to depict those people. We just don't do it. Questions? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Free content

There is a message for you on the US Presidents on US postage stamps discussion page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

I noticed your user box: "This user has made less than 50,000 edits. As a result, he's probably not competent to tie his own shoes much less edit anything. Revert anything he does on sight!". In the English language there is no such thing as "less than 50,000 edits" - this should read "fewer than 50,000 edits".

"Less than..." [a fluid quantity, incapable of enumeration]. (There is less than a pint left in the tank). "Fewer than..." [any quantity capable of counting as individual units]. (There are fewer than 20 sweets left in the jar).

I suggest you dump the info box, or have a word with its author. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's grossly incompetent. I don't know why I even let him edit my user page. On the other hand, I'm sure you're very competent (especially since you picked up on the error!) and can fix the damn thing yourself :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User_talk:207.118.137.113, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The incessant insertion of vandalism warnings is highly disruptive, enough. 207.118.137.113 (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I fully intend on removing speedy deletion taggings of Ted Williams (announcer) since it has successfully gone through an AfD, then you should probably either (a) accept that what you are doing is wrong and stop tagging the article or (b) report me for vandalism at WP:AIV and (attempt to) have me blocked. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! More respectability! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Thank you for improving my article... i really appreciate it. Can you guide me how to make a page like you user page i liked it allot. One more favour if you can add my article person image. Please i dont know how to do it. I will give you link. Ranvir_Kumar_Singh image to put http://postimage.org/image/36smumd38/ Tahnk you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranatalwar (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Upload. But, BE AWARE: We do NOT accept copyright violations. If you don't personally own the photo (I haven't looked) it will very likely be deleted from here if you attempt to upload it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations logos

Please see Talk:List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Unido_logo.png. Alinor (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Tonkin image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you please explain how you think it is more helpful and constructive to wikipedia to remove images for rationale violations instead of fixing the rationale violation? Timeshift (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this arbitration decision principle. If you want to use the image, then write a rationale. Instructions at WP:FURG. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point entirely. Poor form. Timeshift (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I do. WP:NFCC requires a non-free rationale for every use. When such rationales are not present for a given use, the images may be removed, per the Arbitration Committee decision. If you disagree with them, perhaps you should take the issue up with them. As for me writing rationales, sorry, I don't know anything about Australian politics and would not be in a position to write a rationale as to why an image of this person is absolutely critical to understanding the articles where his image was used. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do miss the point. Can you please explain how you think it is more helpful and constructive to wikipedia to remove images for rationale violations instead of fixing the rationale violation? I never accused you of violating any wikipedia policies or procedures so please don't infer so. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it is necessary for me to explain myself further. In the amount of time you've used to take me to task over perfectly legitimate removals, you could have at least educated yourself about the policy and perhaps written one or more rationales. If you feel I am out of line for doing the work that I do, please raise the issue at WP:AN/I. I am quite sure you will be able to find an administrator willing to block me for doing what I do. Failing your presentation to WP:AN/I of my serious lapses in willingness to do the work you think I should be doing (on a volunteer project no less), kindly direct your efforts elsewhere. I have no intention of changing my editing behavior in this regard at this time. Thank you, good bye. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premature closure

Again with the strawman arguments. I never accused you of violating a policy so why would I report you? Can the wikilawyering, it's now about wikilaw. I find your attitude to editing a poor moral standard. But I suppose i'm banging my head against a brick wall based on what i've seen on this talk page. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me the opportunity to be more clear. You are now harassing me. Stay off of my talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Removing an image from Italian football champions

Okay, so remove NFCC stuff, but don't remove content. This edit resulted in missing information which was certainly not subject to free content issues. Try not to do it again or I'll triplicate the forms and have you struck off as a surgeon in New Jersey. Or somewhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error my part. :) Eh, it happens. Wikipedians aren't expected to be perfect. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said they were? Issue fixed. You're still a surgeon (if that's okay with you). Good luck in theater. Kapow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not getting the reference, but that's ok :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No reference, just mild dose of insanity. You make me fill stuff in triplicate? I make you a surgeon. Easy come, easy go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going to have a conversation with my shower curtain now. Would you please excuse me? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Naturally doctor. All the best ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

I asked Skier Dude this question but he has not responded yet, so I post it here for your view. A book cover image File:ISBN 9780712309530.jpg that I nominated for deletion here as failing WP:NFCC#8 was closed as no consensus. I would like someone else knowledgeable in such non-free images to provide me with their input before proceeding to either, renominate, or send to non-free review. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's non-free, I think it's a failure of WP:NFCC #8 as you suggest. It's a rather blatant failure in fact. It's using a non-free cover to support discussion about what is depicted on the cover, not about the cover itself. Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 has multiple cases where similar applications are discouraged. There's really no wiggle room on this one. It's a blatant, complete failure. However, there's another issue at play here; is the cover free or not? What is on the cover is a depiction of something from 1913. That element of the cover would be PD by way of age in the U.S. The remainder of the cover features text, with a grey and a teal region, both curved. There's really nothing creative about the cover that would attract copyright except for the engraving, which is PD. Now, just for more fun; there's another issue at play here. There's two citations to support the inclusion of the cover. But, both citations are to a primary source, one of them talking about the engraver, and the other how to order the book. I.e. the cover and its associated text is effectively useless to the article, as being primary sourced fluff that does not add anything of properly sourced value to the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Interesting points, thanks. I never thought about the illustration's actual status which is a section of an Edward VI high values definitive stamp first issued in 1913-1918 like this one File:Stamp irl 1922 2N6se.jpg but without the Irish overprint, so would have been covered by the crown copyright for only 50 years, and with the simple shapes and text the rest can be regarded as freely licenced. All in all it looks like it is a completely free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching the non-free image on the history portal's featured article (for about the hundredth time). I had finally remembered to check the license for the past few months, but I obviously forgot this month... Sorry about causing you extra work, but thank you for doing the all-too-often thankless job. I'll try to get into the habit of checking again. Cheers! Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem :) Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yo

no hablar inglés 666 biggy tiger (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not able to speak English, then try the Spanish language Wikipedia at http://es.wikipedia.org. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, stop me if I'm stating the screamingly obvious, but anyone who writes "yo no hablar inglés" can't speak Spanish either!!! But you may have already worked that out.AaronRichard (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Hooks

Hi, I see that you've removed the same non-free image twice from this user sub-page - since the person adding it first time was a newbie (the second one, an IP, may have been the same person), perhaps he should be informed why it's not permitted? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is obviously dancing. If the user who made the userbox restores the image, I'll discuss the issue with him. I do that frequently [34]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's put them back, and under his real ID, not an IP. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and notified [35]. Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waves

Hi there, randomly seen you in passing on a couple of articles recently and just wanted to say you have one of the funniest user pages I've seen. *Doffs hat*--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I appreciate it :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thayer Public Library blocked

Per your note at UAA, I have done it. That, as I said, clearly constituted a policy violation (and if you think I'm lenient there are some admins who would have used that as an occasion for a warning, not a block). Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in templates

Thanks for catching that. I was wondering why I wasn't seeing corporate logos for Disney and such in their navboxes. I guess I have my answer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFC image reduction

Hi Hammersoft, I have removed at least seven of the NFC images on the US Presidents on US postage stamps page and have tended to the various fair-use rationals of the remaining images. (Just recently someone added a new NFC image of Reagan's latest stamp). When you get a chance could you check in and leave any additional input? I removed the NFC tag from the page, hopefully this was not premature. I have also asked user:Stan Shebs for his input. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, but it might not be today. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iskon logo problem

I'm sorry to keep bringing this stuff to you, but I've never really studied the fair use issues and I know you're a guru on the subject. I gave this 3O and removed the old logo from the talk page. If you'll take a look at the image file and look at the places it's still being used, one of those (about the designer of the logo, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) seems fairly legitimate, but the other, Svayam Bhagavan, does not. There's also the question of whether the link to the image in the history of the talk page is okay. If anything needs to be done about any of these, feel free to do it or let me know what to do and I'll do it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the use at Svayam Bhagavan, as there was no connection to the text and it was used as decoration, failing WP:NFCC #8. It also lacked a rationale per WP:NFCC #10c. It was also replaceable (failing WP:NFCC #1), as the caption itself on the image told us everything we needed to know. Depicting it brought nothing to the page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I now see what to do: You just remove it. I was afraid that there was some kind of process that had to be followed. In any event, thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of us are editors, and nobody has more 'power' or 'authority' than any editor here so long as they are in good standing. I removed it because it was a blatant violation of 10c. While the 8 and 1 violations were more subject to opinion, it's a pretty blatant case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Harej's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dpmuk (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fox kids bulgaria.png

I know this logo is a copy of File:FOX Kids logo.svg, but I can't use it on the article because of the rationale use.--The TV Boy (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then write a rationale!!! Instructions can be found at WP:FURG. Images CAN have multiple rationales. We don't upload a copy of an image every time we want to use an image. But, as the image is currently used in the article where it is used, no rationale would be sufficient. It's decorative use and wholly unnecessary to the article, violating a number of points of WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, then sorry about that. I see you're point and ask for deletion.--The TV Boy (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get a girlfriend dude, seriously. Or a hobby, for that matter.

Hey, you keep removing my changes and saying that I'm vandalizing wikis? Really dude? Get a fucking life. I did no such thing, other then fix typo's and such. Get laid, douchebag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macryther (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your compliments. As I noted on your talk page, your changes are uncited. I pointed you to the appropriate places to learn about how to handle that. I recommend reading those. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of specialized agencies of the United Nations logos

From here. You removed some of the logos from that page - only those that I have uploaded, because when I uploaded them I put a "non free image" as copyright instead of "public domain". I think I was wrong about their copyright - do you think that this s:Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 (or similar) applies to these logos (e.g. that their copyright status is "public domain" and can be used there)? Alinor (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help out on this one?

I had an image help request from a new editor on my talk page and have replied in some detail on the images issues as I see them. I am just getting ready to leave on vacation and don't have time to follow up or tag the commons images, though I think it would be polite to wait for a reply from the editor. Would you kindly follow up on this one for me whether you agree with my view or not. All the images except one are on the commons and the post is at: User talk:Ww2censor#File:Kantine 1946.jpg. Maybe one or two historic FURs would be acceptable. TIA. ww2censor (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep tabs on it. Send a postcard :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is supposed to rain all week (near Toulouse), so I don't know if I will even get out!! Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is France. Not too bad, even if it is rainy :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HKFA crest.svg

I have noticed that you have removed this image from The Hong Kong Football Association Wesbite several times, claiming that its use does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c and MUST be removed until it does. However, I am not sure why it does not comply. There is already a "Non-free media use rationale" box in the page of "File:HKFA crest.svg". Could you please explain more clearly so that we can make it comply? Thanks! Checkiema (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! WP:NFCC #10c says (emphasis mine) "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item..." There is one rationale on the image's description page. If the image is used 5 times, it needs 5 rationales. If once, 1. I've never removed it from Hong Kong Football Association, because it has a valid rationale for that use. I have removed it several times from Hong Kong national football team for not having valid rationale for that use. Instructions on how to create a rationale are available at WP:FURG. Please be aware that copy/paste rationales are often frowned upon, as they are not "specific" rationales, but rather blanket ones. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see!! Sorry that even I was confused by myself. Will try to correct the issue asap. Thanks a lot!! Checkiema (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi I was wondering if you could direct us to a "model" image, one that has several rationales for use on several articles. A good image that we could use as a reference point. Thanks! Transaction Go (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The best thing to do is read and follow WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You

Stop correcting my changes idot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castlemaster07 (talk • contribs)

"Idiot" is spelled with an 'i' before the 'o'. As to correcting your changes [36][37], your 'changes' are blatant vandalism. If you don't want to have your edits changed, you're in the wrong place. Wikipedia articles are always undergoing change. If you're not prepared to have your contributions edited by other people, then you shouldn't contribute here. If you have any other concerns, please feel free to ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love Symbol Album

This is silly. The rationale clearly sets out that the glyph is being used as the most appropriate identifier for the album, in the places where one would expect to find the album identified.

This is as reasonable as repeatedly using the phrase "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" to identify that album in its article. Yes the phrase "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" is a piece of creative expression, owned by the Beatles; but as their chosen identifier for the album it is clearly appropriate for us and everybody else to use, and any objection would be thrown out as time-wasting and de minimis.

Please therefore give up this disruptiveness, restore the article as it was, and stop reverting it any more (per WP:EDITWAR). Jheald (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you feel I am being disruptive. But, I doubt I can do anything to place myself in a better light with regards to your opinion of me. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...

I love your user page. That is all. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoy it :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Launch by design Inc. article

Hey, so can this speedy deletion be put on hold. I have reliable, secondary sources such as the Toronto Star and the Wall Street Journal but these were taken off the website. Even if the articles are on the website, they are still from secondary sources. Why is this an issue I don't understand, I have tried to remain objective in all forms.Veritas e Aequitas (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed now that link does in fact go to the Projects page but if it were to go to the Press page where the company has been published in reliable sources will this still be marked for speedy deletion? Thanks Veritas e Aequitas (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably let it be deleted, and continue working on it in your own userspace as you have been until it really is ready for prime time. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if I follow your directions as noted, when I re-post the article they're won't be a notice that this article was previously deleted? Also, if I change the ref's to the press page will you still go ahead and delete? Veritas e Aequitas (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a note in the deletion log that it was deleted, and this will be accessible from the article's history. Work on it in your userspace. When you're ready, you can ask me for a look at swing it by the article incubator. But honestly, WP:COI editing is so discouraged I doubt we'll get anywhere. If this company is notable, somebody will write an article about it. You can't help but be biased, and the language of the article is proof of that. There's also been some serious scandals here for paid-for-editing scenarios that generated massive conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for a company to promote itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)PLEASE LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP, OF THE PAGE!

I have one more question to ask, you can do this or not I don't care, but other articles that I used to look at for Interior design companies write up's are all biased also. Some examples are Gensler, Orbit Design Studio and MBH Architects. I don't think these are notable as well but they are still up. I'm not criticizing you in any way, but I personally believe that this should be looked at before taking into consideration this article. Also, this article is not a paid-for-editing scenario, I personally know the owner of the company, and the company has been generating news. They are starting to "take off" and I thought this article would be a good idea also. I understand your view but I hope you understand mine. And do I get a 1000 points for reading the small print? LOLVeritas e Aequitas (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)That's the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which is considered an indication that we need to look at more articles to consider deletion; it is not a useful argument for the retention of your own article. Please also read WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Veritas: 1000 points to you :) Orangemike is correct on every point he raises. It's unfortunate, but a number of readers find stuff on Wikipedia and think "Hey, I can write that about <insert interest>!" and do not see Wikipedia:Your first article, especially Wikipedia:Writing_your_first_article#Things_to_avoid. The reality is that while there is quite a lot of fantastic material on Wikipedia, there's also a huge amount of rubbish. It's hard to stay on top of it. Also, the unfortunate situation you are in is that you are personally associated with the content on which you are writing. As I've noted, this generates a serious conflict of interest. It's very, very difficult to write an article from an unbiased view when you are in that situation. Further, if this company were truly notable, it's very, very likely there already would be an article about them. Not that Wikipedia is complete (by any stretch of the imagination) but I'm confident that any major/significant company in Canada already has an article about it (Category:Companies of Canada by industry). And you know, looking at Google Maps for their location, I see not a corporate office type building, but a residential street of relatively small and well kept homes. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to steal your thunder and don't take this offensively but Facebook started becoming big in a house in Palo Alto, California if I'm correct. Not trying to prove your wrong but trying to give some insight that not all companies become big in a corporate office. Veritas e Aequitas (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All companies start somewhere. Many Internet based companies started in garages. But, very few (if any) would ever have an article on them here while they were still in garages. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A postcard for you

Though the image is a little older it was taken around this time of year, it's for your pleasure. I see that the guy I asked you to keep a look out for has dropped a note on my talk page. Perhaps you can reply (and drop him a TB) as I have little access time here. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I haven't been keeping track. I responded initially, but not since then. I'll have a look. As to where you are staying, I imagine you'll need therapy when you get back. I feel so sorry for you! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questionable files

I'm still learning the ropes about images appropriate for Wikipedia, but there are a couple of questionable images that have recently been linked to pages I'm watching -

The first file is File:Nathan-kress+1.jpg - And I've listed the problems I believe there are with the image on it's Talk page. My first concern is obviously that the owner claimed doesn't really have ownership of the image at all (and I provide background information and links as to why I believe that), but my question is about Wikipedia's policy about images that have been heavily photoshopped (the way this one obivously has). Does extreme photoshopping like this (and not just the removal of a wrinkle or pimple by the original photographer/copyright holder) automatically disqualify an image from use on Wikipedia? I personally believe it should, but I just wanted to ask about the official policy on images that have obviously been heavily photoshopped.

The second file is File:182834 125956140810851 100001893969691 179971 847706 n.jpg - I see it's already been nominated for deletion, but my question is about celebrities uploading pictures of themselves (not that I believe this one was) - are images uploaded by a celebrity who really does own the license him/herself ever acceptable?

--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, go to the Commons site of the file. You posted on the Wikipedia talk page for the image, which is not hosting the image. Commons is. So, concerns about the image are moot on Wikipedia, as it is a Commons image. The image on Commons is located at this location. Second, you can tag the image there as a copyright violation. To do so, add this text to the image description page (the link above): {{copyvio|1=justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2010/03/15/nathan-kress-santa-monica-stud/}} --~~~~. Follow the instructions to notify the uploader on the resulting template on the image description page.
As to this image being heavily modified; it is a copyright violation because it is a derivative work of the original. The original photographer/rights holder retains rights to the image, even though it has been heavily modified by someone else. As to acceptability, were this image not a copyright violation, Commons would accept the image if it were available under a free license. That's the only concern here. Modification of images is 100% acceptable, so long as rights are not violated.
As to celebrities uploading pictures of themselves; Yes, it's perfectly acceptable IF they release the image under a free license. We will not accept images of living people that are not available under a free license, as they are deemed replaceable by free license alternatives. Hope that all helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meineke Car Care Bowl logo

Thanks for catching that the fair use rationale was missing for the Meineke Car Care bowl logo for 2007 Meineke Car Care Bowl. I added the missing rationale and restored the image. –Grondemar 23:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, sysops is perfectly valid

'sysop' (system operator) is the correct term, though 'admin' (administrator) is commonly used. not a big issue, just an FYI.

also, since I've never posted here before, don't expect to post here again, and have never encountered you prior to your post on the TS page of a couple of days ago, mentioning me in your editnotice is a bit of a tell - have we had some kind of a conflict where you were using a different user account? That would explain a lot. --Ludwigs2 15:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't incorrect, so much as "administrator" is more correct. Wikipedia:Sysop redirects to Wikipedia:Administrators, and WP:RFA is RfA, not RfS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notification

You may wish to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FK Atletico Beograd. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always pay attention when a Blue-footed Booby tells me to go somewhere :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much of a reference granted but it does have a shield for Atletico Beograd: http://fy.hattrick.org/Club/?TeamID=1105461&BrowseIds= Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

Per another editors edit summary asking for "authoritative third party judgement" I am requesting your feedback at this deletion discussion on non-free content. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Images

Hey. Please can you explain how the images I uploaded constitute a violation of free-use policy. Just to clear it up to me, so I don't make this same mistake again. I thought you were allowed to use screenshots of TV shows to show the character, but not the actor. Peterwill 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this has to do with Emmerdale character pages. The issue is the overuse of non-free images for depicting characters. WP:NFLISTS covers this. A cast photo may be appropriate, but having a screen shot of every character most emphatically isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC, File:Csa logo.png and Canada men's national soccer team

WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific rationale for every use of a non-free item. That rationale does not exist for the use you are attempting. I understand, based on your edit summary, you don't appreciate the logo being removed and feel I should be providing the rationale rather than removing it. However, this stance has never held up in any debate. Further, as it notes on the policy, it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale. I'm sorry you apparently disagree with the policy, but that does not change policy. If you wish to restore this logo to that article, please provide a valid rationale for the use. Some instructions on how to do so are available at WP:FURG. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your violating WP:CS. Instead of spending your time destroying stuff, why not spend the 30 seconds to put the red-tape BS onto the page you want to put it in. Clearly you care about it, even if no one else on the entire planet does. And clearly you understand whatever he red-tape BS is ... Nfitz (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can infer a violation on my part of WP:CS. I haven't added or removed citations from the article we're discussing. So, it's irrelevant. Anyway, WP:NFCC policy is clear. As I will shortly note on your talk page to ensure communication is complete, I have removed the logo from the article yet again. You are deliberately violating WP:NFCC. I will also note that you are now engaged in an edit war. Further, NFCC compliance edits are specifically exempt from 3RR restrictions. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It's absolutely insulting that you would raise a 3RR issue. I haven't even made 2 edits with 24-hours, let alone 4! Please apologize for your rudeness! Perhaps you should spend more time simply fixing the problems in the project rather than wasting everyone's time with petty red-tape. Stop being a WikiKop and actually do something useful! Nfitz (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is clear from your pattern of edits that you were engaged in edit warring in an attempt to do what it is you wanted to do, which in the process was violating WP:NFCC policy. WP:3RR policy is explicit; it is not an entitlement to allow you to revert up to 3 times in a 24 hour period. Advising you of the problematic nature of the edits you were performing and the policies they violated is not something I have any intention of apologizing for. In fact, I did you a favor. I'm sorry you feel that was "wikilawyering", "rudeness", "wasting [your] time", "petty red tape", "being a wikikop" and "whining". Nevertheless, your insulting comments (a) have no effect on me and (b) are in violation of WP:NPA. If advising you that your comments violate that policy constitutes wikilawyering, then so be it. You are welcome to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uw-coi-username

Hi, I've noticed you've been leaving a lot of {{uw-coi}}'s lately, but some of them have me a little puzzled. There have been one or two where I could see no relation to any company/group/organisation, but there have been loads where you've templated the editor before they've even edited. The problem with this is that there's nothing that can be unless their edits themselves are problematic. For example, if User:Foobar were to create an article on Fooobar, Inc., then it would be appropriate to give them a uw-coi-username and probably a {{softerblock}} or {{spamublock}}. On the contrary, if they start editing articles on gardening (or any other subject not connected with the username) or don't edit at all, then there's no need to do anything. All that said, many of your warnings have been excellent in bringing users to the attention of admins, it's just that CAT:UAA gets clogged up with all the accounts that have never edited. I'd be much obliged if you'd bear this in mind when patrolling! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've received quite a bit of flak about the usage of template:uw-coi-username. A reading of this template shows that it is a warning template, and a casual one at that. I've been accused of biting newbies, of causing them to be blocked, and more. Honestly, I find it rings very, very hollow. I routinely patrol the log. When I come across an account that appears to be a company/group name, I do a web search for that name, especially under URLs. When I find a match, I place the template. The vast majority of my uses of this template have been borne out to be accurate. The template itself contains no instructions on when and how to use it. Instead, I'm being told by various parties that I'm using it inappropriately. If so, there's no instructions anywhere that it is inappropriate usage. So, my response to this in the abstract along with all the other assertions that have been made towards me in using this template is this; get instructions added to the template informing editors to NOT use it until someone actually edits, if that is in fact the intention of the template. Alternatively, place the template at TfD. I've been effectively told by several parties to not use the template. So, if it's not to be used, then let's delete it altogether. Otherwise, I see no reason to not continue to use the template as I have. Please don't take this response as hostile; it isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see where you're coming from, and I don't take it as hostile. The trouble is that if they never edit, there's nothing that can be done about the template, so they just sit in CAT:UAA until someone like me comes along and clears it out, which just mean I remove them from the category because I can't block them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the template should be coded to not place them in that category then. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If I am reading you guys correctly, Hammersoft's use of these templates, especially {{uw-coi-username}} appears to be entirely appropriate, as an encouragement to change their names per WP:CORPNAME which states: Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. It appears this template does exactly what the policy says and I would think that putting the link WP:CORPNAME into the user summary would show the complainers that there is a policy on this and all you are doing is following it. ww2censor (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ww2, and please keep stalking :) Helpful input. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting intentional vandalism

The following user User:Ajabhishekjana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ajabhishekjana has been recklessy tampering cricket templates.I have seen that he has added irrelevant content and biased opinions on all contributions he has made in editing templates for IPL Rosters.

I have reworked his contribs manually and im informing you as an admin to keep a check on him.You may use valid and accurate information sources to justify my claims and counter his vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxiboy277 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant to post to WP:AN/I? I have not placed myself for consideration of demotion to administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Long.

I am 14. I attend school. I have spent so long uploading fixing etc. Those photos hours not minutes. And I dont get to tell my side of the story? I have so much to worry about in my life. Wikipedia is one of those places where I dont belong anymore. 1,250 edits~ 3months~ Thats probably my final edit. Thank You for your time, for what it's worth. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel as you do, and hope you have a better day. You're certainly welcome to respond to the discussion at the article, or raise the issue at WT:NFC. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content and templates

Thank you for your attention to the images on the {{GIJoe-stub}} template. I'm sorry if I didn't go about adding them in the right way, or if I violated any copyrighted images. Please let me know the best way to add an icon to the template, so that it doesn't look out of place in lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Templates#Stub templates. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can use whatever icon you want to use, just so long as it's not one that is tagged as non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer me to where I can find such an icon, or where I can find information on how to upload one myself. I don't want to waste anyone's time by uploading an image, only to find out that I can't use it. Thanks for all your help! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, I'm not in the business of finding images for people to use. In uploading images here, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Upload page, paying particular attention to this page, detailing information and instructions about uploading images you found on a web site somewhere. Almost all of the images you can find on the Internet somewhere are copyrighted by default, per international copyright law. It's safe to just assume they all are copyrighted unless you have proof they are available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reasoning

Actually the reasoning was sound - the prior redirect link was to a short-lived piece of WP:NOT aimed specifically at stamps :) and the discussion on that policy talk page makes the sequence clear. The redirect-change-to-mini-essay was an intermediate stage while the discussion was taking place. The discussion finally resulted in the removal of the recently added item. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Refer to betacommand's talk page. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What the hell image CAN I put on my userbox? I took the image you just talked to me about from the film. You aren't making sense, man? What the hell CAN I freaking do? - Dpm12 1 April 2011 2:51 PM PDT.

Are you aware of Commons? http://commons.wikimedia.org/. Any image on Commons has a license compatible with using it on a userbox. Taking the image from the film doesn't transfer copyrights from the makers of the film to you. Simply because you're taking a screen capture doesn't make you the owner of it. The makers of the film retain copyrights. Therefore, ANY screen cap you take of the film will be copyrighted. Anything copyright can NOT be in a userbox. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg

The file was incorrectly licensed as PD-MinnesotaGov, and several files with that license were deleted, However, it was overlooked that the Seal is PD under US federal law, because it was adopted in 1861, when the current age limit is January 1, 1923. This particular version was also independently drawn by a User on Commons, and he released it as PD. The file is allowed on Commons, this was a misunderstanding. If you can please move it back to Commons, I would appreciate it. Fry1989 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Seal of Minnesota, "In 1983, the legislature altered the seal further". Unless the additions/modifications made to the seal were not sufficiently creative on their own to attract copyright, then the seal is in fact copyrighted by default. Therefore, barring a release of rights by the State of Minnesota, it must remain tagged as non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and does this work?

First, thank you for taking the time to give me some guidance the other day. I have managed to get the images I used in the 3DiTeams article released to CC 3.0 on the lab site. There is another that is not properly attributed that I need to change as well. What is the best way to change the tags? Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, File:Anesthesia_patient_simulator.jpg is on Commons, and appears to be appropriately tagged, as it comes from a .gov site and not attributed to an outside entity. Thus, it's a federal work most likely from the National Institutes of Health. PD is appropriate, as federal works of the U.S. Government are almost always public domain by law. Second, the license displayed here is incompatible with Wikipedia, as it stipulates a non-commercial requirement. Wikipedia's licensing requirements tell us that such a license is not free enough. It must be available for commercial opportunities as well. Therefore, File:3DiTeams percuss chest.JPG and any other work from that site (such as File:3DiTeams palpate hang blood.JPG) must be used under terms of WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The commons photo is not tagged correctly since we gave the NIH the photo for use in a brochure and nothing else. The NIH does give attribution to Jeffery Taekman on their site (lab director and one of the subjects of the photo). We are trying to correct the attribution here to avoid contacting the NIH as Jeff did not mind having the photo available in the commons as long as we receive credit (we see it presentations at meetings all the time). If we can't get this changed here, we will be contacting the NIH in which case the photo will have to be changed here anyway.

If I remove the non-commercial clause, will that be sufficient? Thanks again! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you get the license on the site updated to CC-BY-SA 3.0, that will clear the images here on en.Wikipedia. As for the NIH image, I did not know its provenance. But, if it can be sourced to your lab, and license independently proved, then we can drop the NIH claim of PD and relicense it under whatever (free) license you note. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the webmaster just edited the permissions to BY-SA 3.0 here. If you could just point me to how to change the tags or do one as an example, I can knock out the rest. Thank you! I hate to be a bother, I usually only add references around here. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

example --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		This Barnstar given as a thank you for all your work in sorting out copyright and specifically for helping me learn a little in the process. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tehran Metro Logo.gif

Hi You gave me these floolowing reasons for not using the file above: #1 as the image's use can be replaced by text, #3 for overuse of non-free images, #8 for significance as not increasing reader understanding in any significant way, #8 for being used as an icon, and #10c for being used without an appropriate non-free rationale being provided. I want to know what the problem of using Tehran Metro logo in articles related to Tehran and Tehran Metro is. And the logo used for Tehran Metro is a symbol used in almost every map and document used to refer to a Metro station and that was exactly what I was doing.

Nima Farid (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tehran Metro Logo.gif is a non-free image. As such, it must adhere to all restrictions in place for the use of such image codified in WP:NFCC policy and described further by WP:NFC guideline. I outlined the various failings of NFCC policy that this image has in the uses you attempted. The #10c issue is correctable. The #1, #3 and #8 issues are not. The image can not be used in the way you wish to use it. Whether or not the organization uses the logo in this way or not is irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]