User talk:Hammersoft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hammersoft (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 9 July 2011 (→‎Wood River Photo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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]

Virginia Tech Hokies football

You said, "the hurdles just trebled in size." Five-yard penalty for mixing metaphors; hurdles are not used in football, . BTW, I gave you credit at WP:3O for giving a Third Opinion in that dispute (or maybe it was a !3O, see my Third Opinion Paradox essay). Hope all is well with you, best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Metaphor nazi ;) Thanks for the credit :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Didn't notice this until now

Your welcome, the section did give me a smile when I saw it and it was the least I could do considering everything. Best,   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBSFM Logos

I think it was wrong for Hammersoft to take down the CBS FM logo history without discussion or Conscientiousness. They are deleted now. I kind of understand his or her reasoning . Still i would have liked to have an opportunity to try to email the station to see if it was possible to get some kind of official approval to use them before they were taken down. DLA75 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You would have had to have gotten the release of the logos from CBS under a free license. Its extremely unlikely they would have done so, as they have a vested financial interest in the logos. Permission to use here is not a category we accept. Either they're free license, or they're fair use. If fair use, they must adhere to WP:NFCC. They didn't, and couldn't. If you feel that galleries of non-free logos should be permitted, you can raise the issue at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Lists of EastEnders

Hello Hammersoft. Just wanted to ask you something. You remember when you removed all the images from the lists of EastEnders characters? Well, looking at WP:NFLISTS, it says that it's preferred to have a group image, not a requirement. Well I was wondering, maybe it would be fine to have one or two images in the lists as long as the relevant character has enough information? It says images should be used as long as it has enough context. Would it be okay with you if we added a couple of images to each list (as long as the character has enough context)? Thanks in advance, GSσяву Chat with Me! 14:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, please take a look at List of EastEnders characters (1985), I have cleaned this up and added some things, is that good enough for a couple of images? GSσяву Chat with Me! 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's grey area wiggle room to be sure. Any addition has to be carefully thought out. Is the visual appearance of the character in some way significant as supported by secondary sources? Is there sourced discussion regarding the visual appearance? Would a free alternative be possible, such as the character's actor being in public out of costume? Is the character a major character that does not already have its own article? Caution is advised. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some very notable characters that just don't have enough text for their own article, but an image would be necessary. There's very few actor images we could use as there aren't that many available. GSσяву Chat with Me! 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to have to be careful about how you define "necessary". Mere depiction really isn't enough. Is there sourced discussion about the visual appearance of the character? If not, don't add an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech uniforms

I would appreciate your input at User talk:Δ#My plan for the uniform images. Thanks. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft Talk News: Spitting in the wind and irrational expectations

This week's Signpost contained an article on editor retention. This was based in part of a resolution passed by the Foundation. I read both of these and couldn't help but find myself laughing so hard my ribs hurt. The abject lack of situational awareness expressed by the Board is so stunning as to defy imagination.

Every single organization that has ever existed in the world has experienced an organizational life cycle in one form or another. To think that Wikimedia is somehow immune to this is to think the stock investors of the 90s thinking the old investing rules no longer applied were geniuses of their time. Yet, that is exactly what the Board seems to believe. They acknowledge there's a steady decline in editing, and then make fixing this problem their "top priority". Wikipedia has been in existence for 10 years. To think that we can somehow reverse the trend of editing to an (implied) earlier time is ludicrous.

Wikipedia has a body of editors. That population has changed over time. However, the general knowledge base of available editors has produced an unbalanced resource. Some areas have excellent coverage. Some have very little and/or inaccurate coverage. Some areas have experienced explosive growth. Others experience growth at glacial speeds. That is the nature of the population that volunteers its time and efforts to the project. That's what the open model has created. You can't change that anymore than you can change over what horizon the sun will rise tomorrow.

Wikipedia has been in existence for 10+ years. We now have 3.6 million articles. We are more comprehensive than any encyclopedia in history. Creating new content is becoming increasingly more difficult. There's less and less to create, especially in areas where we already have good coverage. To steal a phrase from the oil industry, we are past peak editing (oil). No amount of wringing blood from rocks will reverse that trend. With less and less to do for our average population, it should come as no surprise that editing behavior is changing. Yet, the Board seems to be so concerned about this change in editing that 'fixing it' has now become a top priority.

So, let's "treat new editors with kindness", "increase community awareness" that editing is down, and let's get "more friendly and collaborative". This will be as effective a solution to the question of "how do we colonize Mars?" as coming up with a new recipe for cherry pie. Another apt analogy; Microsoft, circa 2002 (ten years after 3.1 launch), pondering why sales of Windows 3.1 are down and what they can do to reverse the trend. Somewhere in this stupidity there's an xkcd just begging to be written.

The appalling lack of situational awareness expressed by the Board is absolutely shocking, and speaks to a serious business immaturity on the part of the members of the board. On the plus side, no matter the depth of their incompetence, they have no effect on a volunteer population they have no control over. Perhaps in the future the board will be comprised of individuals capable of recognizing what stage of organizational life we are in, identifying the strengths available to more mature organizations and similarly recognizing weaknesses, and respond in a professional manner in accordance with our mission. That mission contains far greater a challenge than just "collect and develop educational content". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little something for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I award this barnstar to you, Hammersoft, in recognition of your excellent work in file-related issues, going back years. I appreciate all that you do. Acalamari 09:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Covers in discography

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Rlholden's talk page.
Message added 14:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Zimbabwean paper money

I wish to point out that following a comment on Banknotes of Zimbabwe all the banknotes of Zimbabwe are demonetised, and following an investigation a couple of years ago it was discovered that demonetised banknotes were in public domain. As quoted: All banknotes, Bearer Cheques and Agro (Agricultural) Cheques are in public domain as of 21 June 2010. Banknotes of the first dollar (ZWD), along with emergency bearer cheques, were demonetised on 21 August 2006, and bearer cheques of the second dollar (ZWN) were demonetised on 31 December 2008. Following the de jure suspension of the dollar since 12 April 2009, the paper money of the third and fourth dollars (ZWR and ZWL) are now effectively demonetised and therefore in public domain. According to clause 50 of the Copyright Act of Zimbabwe, Chapter 26:1, an image of a banknote which has been demonetized in terms of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act Chapter 22:10 is in the public domain. That should clear things up. --Marianian(talk) 12:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not entirely. According to this report, the article Banknotes of Zimbabwe still contains 20 non-free images. Spot checking found none, but the article needs to be checked and cleared of non-notable non-free banknote images. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you need a specific page nuked of NFC let me know, I have a tool for that :). I went ahead and removed the NFCC from this article already. ΔT The only constant 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your report has a very high concentration of numismatic articles in the top 25 or so. I attempted to start discussion regarding this, but with the exception of Marianian above, my efforts have been completely unresponded to. Given the attempts to start discussion and the utter lack of response, feel free to fire up your tool and zap the content out of any of the currency articles in your report. I'll help deal with the aftermath. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gave them a swift kick. ΔT The only constant 17:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nicely done! Thanks! I'll keep an eye on things. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also booted out the image place-holders for the Standard Chartered cheques. They are the ones unlikely to be PD as the copyright belongs to SC, not RBZ. All RBZ images should by now be tagged with {{PD-ZW-currency}} and prepared for Commons transfer. After that and after a few more clean-ups and revision it can be ready for A-class consideration. --Marianian(talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCR

When closing a discussion, don't forget to replace {{Non-free review}} with {{Non-free reviewed}} (with appropriate parameters) on the image page when there's a clear consensus.

On a completely unrelated note, thank you for finally archiving your talk page! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. That non-free reviewed template is awkward, given that the review template points to a discussion, and the reviewed template wants you to point to a user. On a completely nit-picky technical note, I didn't archive my talk page. I deleted a bunch of old stuff. ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please do not remove other users' comments from article Talk pages. You did this at least twice at Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden, and did so with neither explanatory comment nor valid reason. Thank you. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, because I'm a terrorist bent on destroying the talk page of this article. It's my mission assigned by my Al Qaeda cell. <rolling eyes> I didn't delete anyone's comments on purpose. There's heavy traffic on that page, and edit conflicts can and do generate overlaps sometimes on people's texts. I did nothing wrong. Go complain to the programmers. I'll attempt to fix what the mediawiki software screwed up if it hasn't already been fixed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Looks like the database finally caught up with itself. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image question

Hey, just a quick note regarding ^, have people not read WP:DTTR? Anyway, on this page I have posed a question to you. I was hoping you could answer there as it's relevant to that article, obvs. Appreciate it! Lara 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free coins

I happened upon your comments about the overuse of non-free images in Euro coins and while my forte is stamps I am not so well up on the coin situation but it seem to me that all the images in the table should go immediately as they are effective a list and seems to fail WP:NFLISTS. That would leave considerably fewer to deal with for which rationales might be written if there is critical commentary. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. The problem I have is more to do with mass overuse across a large number of numismatics articles. Also of note; almost all the coin images from the Euro series are almost certainly going to be deleted from Commons. Euro banknotes aren't subject to copyright, but paradoxically coins are. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quick! Yeah I looked at the report of overused non-free images and see coins appear there quite often. Indeed there are some numismatic oddities copyrightwise but I will continue with the stamp issues and badly licenced uploads as the non-free numismatic world is a bit complex for me right now. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful note

While patronisation from yourself is about as surprising as death and taxes, the long and the short of it is, I had begun writing that post before it was archived, and on finding it had been closed, I decided to post it anyway, rather than have my wise words of wisdom scattered to the wind. I won't bother pointing out the oddity of you posting in a closed discussion to tell someone else it was a closed discussion, but suffice to say, being a veteran of teh wiki as I am, and as you well know, and if I wanted to take my gripe elsewhere, rest assured I know the why's and wherefore's and other bullshit that entails too. Hope springs eternal. Simple fact is, the failures of the admin aside, the report contained evidence of carbon copy behaviour & beliefs straight out of Beta 2009 tbh, although the excuses from yourself were at least a little more stretched this time - a bit embarrassing to the whole harassment theory when the guy's never even heard of Delta's past history eh? The same shit happening to two 'different' people just for doing the same thing? Wierd. Still, what works, works. Sad to see a guy who clearly has more pressing concerns have to go through what should have been modified many moons ago. I can only say I hope Delta at least responds to you in private, as he sure doesn't seem to care much even for your advice in public. Still, at least you've gotten around to giving it, even if the motives are a little different to all those who've been saying the same shit for years, with no visible effect. Right, that's it, I just wanted to let you know I'd seen your helpful note. If you feel the need to reply, please do it here and not at my page, if only to save me from the awarding of an unfunny barnstar. birydiaw. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I got as far as the first comma in the first sentence and stopped. I choose not to spend my time responding to insults. If you intend on posting further insults to my talk page, don't. I.e., stay off my talk page unless you can avoid insulting me. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't give a monkeys about your totally pompous approach to human comunication or what you choose to spend your time on. You don't want people coming here 'insulting' you? Then clue yourself in and realise they maybe don't need your helpful comments in the first place, as that's the only thing that brought me here. Why the hell else would I come here? Has anyone ever spent any time here who wasn't insulting you and wasn't discussing the latest technique for NFCC 'enforcement' which has been declared to have consensus after a discussion between yourself and one or maybe two others? Would that you held yourself and Delta to such high standards each time you patronise the fuck out of the latest poor sap finding themselves at his talk page due to his activities and not having a clue what they're about to face, having up till then probably only had to deal with decent, co-operative, communicative and collaborative editors, or at the very worst, only mildy incivil people who maybe just had a bad day. You two take pride in the way you treat people, you've got no excuses on that score. Jesus, with what you dish out on his behalf daily to other users, you've got some brass balls even mentiong the word insult to me frankly. What you and Delta have absolutely no perception of, is that you yourselves are the reason most of the many many people who talk to you daily, choose to insult you after just the second or third interaction. It's hilarious that you both think the only reason you are held in such low esteem is because you do NFCC work. Man you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen admins wading through the shit in the Irish and other conflict areas and not draw a tenth of the abuse you two do on a daily basis. MickMacNee (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I got as far as "pompous" and stopped reading. You're spending an awful lot of time writing stuff that isn't being read. If you can't be civil, you will be ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure sure. While these talk page exchanges are irrelevant and it makes no odds whether you're reading or not (well, until you get to the bottom bit), and I've already told you the reason it was initiated, in terms of more important arenas, such as the talk page of the non-free content policy, which as a core policy you seem to be modifying off your own back or with the thinnest justifications an awfull lot lately, I'll remind you of the few basic examples of actual incivility, as it is defined on Wikipedia:
          1. Ignoring the positions of others and answering a point that was not made, or worse, responding in terms of a percieved ulterior motive rather than good faith disagreement
          2. Making fallacious arguments to support your own position that you either know to be untrue, or are fully aware have been debunked to the ordinary standard of independent review
          3. Talking down to, belittling the ideas or view of, or otherwise patronising, other editors for their perceived or even real lack of policy/guideline knowledge. This includes that thing you seem to think is just harmless humour, but is really just veiled insults
          4. Swamping discussions with tendentiously high levels of your own repetitious or off topic input, in an attempting to sway or even derail good faith attempts to build a consensus which may be going against your personal views, particularly where these are at odds with current policy
          5. Mis-representing the views of others, particulalry when quoting others positions or conclusions in a discussion not germaine to the topic at hand, and particulalry if you are unduly inflating the significance of such debates or conclusions as the current consensus on any matter
        • Oh, and templating the regulars is also considered incivil, as Delta's just done it to me for perceived 'personal attacks' in the above. We'll put aside whether his actual warning is warranted or not or whether he's got a handle on when discussing a contributor's known actions is and is not one, I'm sure he's not up for such a discussion that's for sure. Maybe you should include DNTTR and other civility basics in your next Q&A session on Delta's approach, although as I said in the sections above, he's been told this a few billion times by now. While I won't be so gauche as to put the above points in template form, if you really weren't aware of them, which I find it hard to believe given your experience, you can consider yourself so informed that these are examples of unacceptably incivil behaviour, which if repeated will lead to a removal of your ability to engage in such conduct. If I see you engaging in such behaviour anywhere, ignoring it is something I certainly won't be doing. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for engaging me civilly. As to your bullet points, and your threat to have me blocked if I don't modify my behavior, I recommend you seek to have me blocked now as I fully intend to continue operating as I have before. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As you well know, the above was not a threat, and blocks are not back dated or even future dated. Your stated intent to ignore the above advice is duly noted, and will be taken into account as is normal should you do something that someone considers block worthy and likely to be repeated. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I abide by policy and guideline, not your standards for how you think I should be behaving. I fully intend to continue acting as I have. Since you believe I have been acting uncivilly, and since I fully intended on continuing as I have before, I am by your measure a threat to the project and should have "a removal of [my] ability to engage in such conduct" and certainly "ignoring it is something I certainly won't be doing" would seem to apply. In short, either produce evidence that I am breaking policy and/or guidelines or please cease this discussion. I see nothing in your admonition above that is supported by any evidence. What I see is a fiercely negative opinion of me. Frankly, I don't care about your negative opinion of me. You are certainly welcome to it, but it will have no effect on my editing here. If you have specific actions (with links to the diffs) with which you disagree, I'd be happy to discuss them in a civil manner. Alternatively, if you are going to speak in generalities and continue to voice your hateful opinion of me, then we're done here and I have to ask you to stay off my talk page. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • They're not my standards, I detailed the policy, and my opinion that you break it is of course entirely my own - you're hardly going to be convinced of your own failures by any diff I might present here. And I'm not entirely sure if you can even prove 'hatred' through diffs without it just being your personal negative opinion of me, but I'm not going to hold you to the standards you yourself claim to abide by, even though it's a good example of at least one of the points above, as are the other comments re. what you do and don't care about and will and will not take into account. Let's not even get started on how many people in the past have claimed they "abide by policy and guideline". In the field of long and drawn out dispute resolution on Wikipedia, as an opening defence it's rarely if ever true, certainly not for people who get as much negative feedback as you do, be it generalised or specific. It was a favourite cliam of Delta if I recall. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • When you have diffs regarding specific actions or behaviors of mine, I'll be happy to discuss. Until then, goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an honour!!

My own unique barnstar! I am flattered beyond even my expectations. Without doubt, this is the highlight of my wikipedia "experience".
Thank you! May the wearing of this barnstar permanently wrinkle my lapel! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How do I access my 1000 points? And what can I use them for? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you read the fine print, that barnstar comes with oak leaf clusters :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) So, how do I access my 1000 points? And what can I use them for? Or are they "metaphorical"? b)Similarly, where are the oak leaf clusters? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:United States Coast Guard/Selected biography/3

Your removal of the image used in Portal:United States Coast Guard/Selected biography/3 of Dorothy Constance Stratton, I have reason to believe is in error. It is not a non-free image. The source is the U.S. Coast Guard and is in the public domain. Unless you can come up with a reason not putting the image in the biography, I will be undoing your edit. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is marked as a copyrighted, non-free image. As it is marked that way, Hammer is completely right per WP:NFCC in removing it from the non-mainspace page. That said, it sounds like it has the wrong image license; if it is a work of a US gov't employee in the duties of doing their job, it should be marked with the correct PD tag (possibly {{PD-USGov}}. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be using [File:DorothyStratton1sm.jpg] in the Portal biography , which was just downloaded from the U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office website: [1] I have seen that it has the correct tags and it is in the public domain. If you will note, the original photo under question is also a part of the same web page and is in the public domain. I will be correcting the tag on that file shortly. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Euro coins and images

Sorry. Could you explain in simple terms, why those images are not allowed there? Luka666 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did. Please read WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC #10c. That's about as simple as it gets. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your saying if i add "Non-free media use rationale for Euro coins" or reupload each image with licencing similar to File:Image-1 Euro coin Mt.gif, then you will be happy? I just cant seem to get why WP:NFLISTS would have any effect on the images i linked compared to the ones that were allready up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka666 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That image is a copyvio, and will be deleted. euro coins are non-free period. ΔT The only constant 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So all euro coins should and will be deleted? Luka666 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That image is copyrighted and on commons, commons does not accept non-free content. it will either need moved to enwp and kept or it will be deleted from commons. ΔT The only constant 18:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the explanation, but are you sure thats right, because most coin images are on commons? Could you also explain how would one go about moving an image from commons to enwp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka666 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billings page

I didn't feel the need to comment I just did what you asked and cited sources on the page. Sara goth (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos anthology

I'd like to question your removal of the book cover images for Cthulhu Mythos anthology. You cited WP:NFLISTS. However, earlier in the same page as that policy at WP:NFCI, #1, it is stated that "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" is permissible. This also seems to fit with NFLISTS #6 which states to use to use such images as sparingly as possible, states that the decision on what to include should be made by editor consensus. I would also contend that this article is not a list in the same way referred to by the examples in NFLISTS (character lists, discographies). It seems to me more of a composite article. After reading these policies I'm unsure as to why each of these images if they were in individual articles (if such articles existed) would be OK, but as a combined article they are not. If that is truly the case, I would suggest that the article be split into individual articles and the combined article be replaced with a category. I'd like to revert your edits so that the images don't get deleted while this is discussed, and then either suggest that the article be split, or at a minimum start as discussion as to what images are necessary per NFLISTS #6, rather than a wholesale removal of all of them without consensus. Thanks. --Rtrace (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's been quite a number of articles that people have described as more than a list or composite articles, or articles comprised of lots of small articles that are insufficient to stand on their own and are better as a conglomeration. In each of the cases that I've ever encountered like this, the non-free covers used within them have been removed and continue so. Yes, it's true, if these were separate articles then the cover for each of them would be appropriate for that article, whereas as a group article they are not. However, there is a balancing factor against this; splitting the article into various sub-articles is highlight problematic. Each of the articles would need to be quite capable of standing on its own. Specifically, they must all pass Wikipedia:Notability (books). This is non-trivial, and is in fact more difficult than it might seem. In the anthology article, most of the entries are comprised of just a few sentences followed by a listing of the contents and reprints. The amount of references is quite sparce, especially given the 13 entries in the list. As stands few, if any, would pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) to qualify as a stand alone article. As to restoration of the images to prevent deletion, there's no need. If one or more stand alone articles can be created, the covers are widely available on the Internet. There's no need to retain content that is against our policies/guidelines with the view that it eventually will be compliant when the content is so widely available elsewhere. I hope this helps to understand the situation. If it doesn't, or you still disagree, please feel free to raise the issue for more input at WT:NFC. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued this discussion on the articles talk page since at least one other editor has shown interest. --Rtrace (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note...

I note that your pretty table at the bottom of your user page has a column for crats and ArbCom that is dreadfully devoid of insults. I wonder if that means something about you, or about functionaries? — Coren (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no reason to suspect that bureaucrats and arbcom members are any less likely to engage in various insulting behaviors. So, I guess it means something about you er me (oops); likely that I don't interact with either group very much. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Bolivian presidents

Sorry but I cannot understand this prohibition of seing the faces of the bolivian presidents. Does Mr. Morales believe that he is clever? Why the portraits can be found in the articles of the presidents? Lidia Gueilier Tejada can be found on recent deaths but the image says that she is allowed only in her article. Can you "the clever bureaucrat" explain this to me? 77.49.58.110 (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images cannot be used to simply decorate a list - free images, like the 80% of the entries in that, are fine as we have no restrictions on their use, but non-free must be used in the context of commentary from sources about the person. --MASEM (t) 12:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the missing images to the page President of Bolivia. I noticed that you keep removing them but if you would read the licensing section of the files you would see that they are permitted on that page as that qualifies as fair use. I noted this in my edit summary so that others can see that as well. Rxguy (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • And reverted. The issue isn't fair use. The issue is our WP:NFCC policy, and the subsidiary WP:NFLISTS. We do NOT permit this sort of use in lists. Please do not restore again. If you need further explanation, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ma'friend but it says clearly in the Licence Context that all those images are A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y free for this article so they cannot be considered non-free!! --194.219.11.88 (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking "free" as in free of copyright restrictions and reuse limitations. The images of the missing Presidents are still copyrighted to the Bolivian government, and thus we must treat them as non-free, and because they are of living persons, we can expect a free replacement is possible, and thus must be removed. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Mister Masem but the most of them are dead. If you want to take out the alive and wait for them to die there is not problem but the ones that died in the 1930s why cannot be put?--194.219.11.88 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not put your nose everywhere. I was talking to Masem. I simply told him that they were dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.11.88 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do understand that this talk page is mine? What, I'm not permitted by you to respond to comments you make on my own talk page? Are you serious? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we have party in my home all the visitors are discussing their own issues and I do not tell them neither I want to speak with them nor they must not discuss a specific thing. --194.219.11.88 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a specific point to address regarding Wikipedia and/or its content, by all means do so. I have no interest in any parties at your house, and this is any case not the appropriate forum for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See lad, if you want war you will have it but I say you that Iwill do anything to put the images.194.219.11.88 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I have huffed I will not be rude anymore and I want to discuss it like friends. I want you to explain me why we consider an image non-free as it is partly free. --194.219.11.88 (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening an edit war, or worse acting on it, will achieve nothing that you want. "Partly free" has no meaning on Wikipedia. Either an image is public domain/free license, or we use it under terms of our WP:NFCC policy and treat it as non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like I say sorry and you attack me. But, however, because I want to prove that finaly I was right in this issue I will discuss it. When I say "partly free" I meen that it is not free in other articles but it is absolutely free in this article. --194.219.11.88 (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free in one article but not in another? That doesn't make any sense. We're concerned with the copyright status of a given image. The copyright status does NOT vary based on what article it is displayed in. I'm thinking, without meaning to cast aspersions, that you have a lack of understanding of copyright in general. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I'm not user of the english language, secondly, how in hell you found that I done a comment in other language and thirdly, why (in the known list) you put the coat of arms of bolivia instead of Paz Estenssoro but all the others are simply void?--194.219.11.88 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP means that in the President of Bolivia article which hosts a list of them, in all the non-free images there is nothing apart from Víctor Paz Estenssoro who has the coat of arms of Bolivia. Really, why you did that? --178.128.75.48 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did I do what? I still don't understand your question. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you put the coat of arms instead of Estenssoro and nothing instead of hte others??????--178.128.75.48 (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know that I did. If I did, it doesn't matter. If you want to leave it, leave it. If you want to remove the coat of arms, remove it. But, don't restore non-free images to that list. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, or honestly care. Look at the edit history of the article if it concerns you. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, something else, the image of Jose Manuel Pando is one of the non-free but you have left it.--178.128.75.48 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer!--178.128.75.48 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37--46.12.45.67 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and what means 42?--46.12.45.67 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to remove the image yourself if you like. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you don't care any more about non-free content.--46.12.45.67 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're unwilling to do so, I should therefore conclude you don't care about the project anymore? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you going to remove it or not? You know it's in violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because neither me nor you are interested anymore, I will put all the others and noone will accuse me.--46.12.45.67 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said I wasn't interested, and I've reverted you. Please stop restoring those images in violation of policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry dear 46.12.45.67 but someone who likes The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy surely don't even knows about Dr. Who--46.12.12.181 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Technological University of the Philippines.jpg

Hi, with regards to the above mentioned file, I was not the original uploader. I merely resized the file after someone tagged a 'image too large' tag on it. Please feel free to delete it if you deemed appropriate. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠ ♠ 12:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wellington R. Burt

Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion here. 66.87.80.139 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon at the RfA

I think Template:Ham should indicate that I have my problem under control. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC) BTW, this message is Arbcom-approved.[reply]

  • It's nice to see you accepting porcine diversity! ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2002-issue Euro cent obverse.png & File:2002-issue Euro cent obverse.jpg

I'll delete them for you, but only if you have a plan to deal with the disruption caused by the massive number of delinks which will follow. Let me know if you're still interested. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a plan, nor do I think I should have to have one to delete a copyright violation off of Commons. I don't speak the languages for the projects on which they are used, so contacting those projects would be useless. There is apparently a bot that handles notifications, and that should be sufficient. If not, the local projects can upload the images from whatever source if they have an EDP that permits non-free content usage. Regardless, there is no question they are copyright violations and retagging them as missing copyright information is inappropriate; we know they are copyright violations. There is no free license that applies or could apply. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. To confirm: if a shitstorm starts, I can expect your help, yes? -FASTILY (TALK) 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just told you no. Quite a number of other Euro coin images have already been deleted due to this licensing issue. I fail to see any reason why you are obstructing the removal of a blatant copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, all I'm saying is that I'll delete them, but only if you back me up should I come under scrutiny. If you won't even do that, don't count on those files being deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several other admins have been busily deleting those images. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it. I would appreciate it though if you would reinstate the copyright violation tags, as they clearly are so. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a yes. And meh, it may be faster if you ask me - compile a list and I'll mass-delete them :P -FASTILY (TALK) 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I twice told you no. If you're insistent on reading "no" as "yes", that's your business. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fastily my friend, he means yes, I know him, he simply feels embarrased to admit it --194.219.11.88 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has now been warned on his talkpage about WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL. DMacks (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at The TV Boy's talk page.
Message added --The TV Boy (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

About: Doc Daneeka

You wrote:

Besides, anyone willing to stand for RfA is too crazy to be an administrator.

I don't understand.

--Major Major Major58 (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tables should or even need illustration

And the best way to do this are thumbnails. Tables need to be illustrated so that anyone who reads one can be able to visualize something better, which in this case would be a screenshot of a station identification. If thumbnails remain prohibited, I will stop contributing to TV ident articles. --Capsoul (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then stop contributing to TV ident articles. Look, WP:NFCC might not be convenient for the purposes of this article, but it IS policy. If you really think I'm utterly wrong about this, feel free to plead your case at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillickers disruptive behavior.

I'm preparing a user conduct RfC on Gwillickers for disruptive behavior, canvassing and making legal threats. If you're interested in participating I was hoping that you might be able to add your experiences from Talk:US Presidents on US postage stamps. Since I was not involved in that discussion I feel that you have the most perspective related to that. I have a synopsis of that debate already done on a draft page of the RfC in my user space. Feel free to edit in that space or bring up questions on the talk page there. This RfC was triggered by Gwillickers behavior at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and I'm finding out now that this behavior has been going on for quite some time. Brad (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I might take a look when I have time. That might not be for a few days. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hammersoft, Just popping by to inquire about a copyright/techie issue. You quite correctly removed the CC logo from the Chanel template with this edit; I was wondering whether I might use this logo instead, as different copyright rules apply to fonts. (By the by, I'm also not sure how to insert it as it has the same file name as the prohibited CC one – File:Chanel logo.svg.) Asking here saves the bother of putting it in only to find that it has been removed. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection to adding the image from Commons. If the non-free image here has the same name as the PD one on Commons, you'll need to rename the one here in order to be able to refer to the one on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't move the PD one (there's no Move tab at the top of the page) and I can't upload the new file to either Wikipedia or Commons as both times I receive the message "This file is a duplicate of the following file" (eg the PD one, which it isn't). Any further ideas? Ericoides (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the en wiki image File:Chanel logo.svg is just made up entirely of simple text with two overlapping "c"s, one being reversed, not even any graphics, so it is ineligible for copyright and should be licenced as {{PD-textlogo}} just like the commons image commons:File:Chanel logo.svg which is the same except for the intertwined "c"s. On reflection Hammersoft, don't you agree it is too basic to be copyrightable? ww2censor (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean that if I put the interlocking Cs back they won't be removed? Ericoides (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but you're not assured they'd remain. On the other other, no one is going to challenge the retention of the text only logo since it clearly falls into an uncopyrightable logo category, and thus indisputably a free image. --MASEM (t) 11:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I can't upload the text-only logo until someone tells me how to do it (see my query above). Ericoides (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, that's a problem. I've moved the interlocking logo to a different name so that File:Chanel logo.svg should allow the commons image to come through, so no further is necessary there. (Note that I've kept that nfc version of the chanel logo on Chanel) --MASEM (t) 12:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Vandalism of My User Page

Hello, Not only have you removed "Non Free Images" you have also deleted the following: England Flag, Teal Title, Some Usrboxes and a bit of my text. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR!: I got those images from another persons page, You have NOT deleted theirs. I have taken great offence, and I feel discriminated against. Thanks. Barrovian (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physics portal edit

Hello. I would like to discuss this edit. I agree that the images had to be removed because the non-free template limits these images to only the related article. That was an oversight.

Also, when I saw that the images had been removed with your explanation, I recalled something about fair use images not being permitted in portal spaces. I had read this on a talk page somewhere (I think). Same with the main page on Wikipedia. However, I have not read this on a policy page. I checked WP:NFCC, and there is nothing specific about fair use images on portals. Do you know which policy page pertains to portals and the main page? Thanks.

By the way, I filed the appropriate forms with the local planning office. It is a tedious task but it must be done!!! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFCC#9, non-free can only be used in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steve Quinn: We've logged receipt of the forms, but they were unfortunately lost in processing. Oh well, you didn't get 1000 points :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! (That was funny) Well, that is certainly par for the course for a bureaucracy. At least your bureaucracy is consistent with all the others. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revert

Thanks --Natet/c 08:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crytek logo.svg

Hello Hammersoft, I just wanted to drop a note about Template:Crytek. I've undone an edit you made removing File:Crytek logo.svg, as it is my belief that the image clearly qualifies as {{PD-text}} in that it "...only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes." For similar examples, check out Commons:Category:Logos. If you still disagree, please let me know. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then fix the tagging on the image. As is, it is marked as a non-free image. Per terms of WP:NFCC #9, it may not be used on templates. Personally, I don't think it qualifies for PD-text. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, I didn't notice the creator's tag had a non-free template in it. I brought up an argument at WT:VG not too long ago that logos featuring heavily stylized text like File:SEGA logo.svg or abstract shapes like File:Eidos logo.svg constitutes original art, but that was soundly shot down. I do think that WP tends to throw the net a little too far with that, but I'd say that the Crytek logo is less original than Sega, with only angled letters and triangles. To be honest, I'm not very invested in it, I was just aiming to fill the navbox. If you want I can re-tag it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem I think we run into is one of grey area. I grant it could be viewed as pd-text, but there's subjective assessment there. There've been many debates about such logos, some finding in favor of pd-text some not. I retag in obvious cases, like this one that was marked as non-free. When it goes to grey area, I don't think there's any harm in contacting the organization that owns the logo for their input. At a minimum, it shows a good faith effort by us to clarify. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In a case like this, do you think an OTRS letter would be necessary, or a simple email confirmation due to the nature of the image? Doing a quick search on Google I came across this, which is the first ruling I've seen of this nature. They don't specify how simplistic the design is, but it still definitely greys the area. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • A letter to OTRS would help, but I don't think it very likely you could get a given company to submit something for OTRS. A copy of the e-mail you send the company and their response submitted to OTRS by an editor here would be sufficient. I agree it is a grey area, and one where it's all too easy to start playing lawyer. I'd rather be certain. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian FA badge

Hello!

Following your removal of the File:Hungary FA.png from the articles of the Hungarian u-teams because of failing WP:NFCC #10c, I'm looking for a solution how to re-add the badge to the infobox. Unlike you, I'm not quite familiar with images on Wiki, and really don't want to make you some extra work, so I'd rather ask you what to do.

As I understand the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, if I add a non-free image rationale template for every site the logo is used on, it would give permission to appear the crest on those sites. May it be the solution or misunderstood something? Thanks for the answer, and sorry for the disturbing, Thehoboclown (talk)

  • Well thank you for the "Unlike you..." attack. Much appreciated. Anyway, if you're going to use non-free content in an article it is a very good idea to become well acquainted with our non-free content policy and the associated guideline. Putting a rationale on an image description page is but one of many criteria that a non-free image needs to comply with to be acceptable for use on a given article. Yes, please do follow the instructions as noted, but just be aware of the policy and guideline too. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the answer! I'll read it through and will follow as written there. On the other hand, I don't understand this 'Unlike you' stuff. Maybe I used it wrong or has a totally different meaning than I know? I wanted to say, that I'm not really comfortable in this topic like you are. I wrote this after seen your tireless work related to images and rather meant to be a praise. Thanks again. Thehoboclown (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. You are being invited because your name has been mentioned in the RfC/U. Coemgenus 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you don't make bot edits

You don't edit war and use the same cookie-cutter edit summary each time. You BRD, and realize context Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, many of my edits are very much like his. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone reverts one of your edits, you don't copy that exact same message again when undoing him, do you?Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I do. I grant that I usually leave a message on their talk page (often a templated one, such as my own creation at User:Hammersoft/10c), but I can't say it's 100% of the time. It's not 100% of the time with Δ either, and he also often leaves templated messages. In the particular case of the Indian TV series he didn't, and he relied on the edit summary to convey that. I don't think it's a big enough difference for indefinitely banning him from the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tendentious. People, especially admins, make edits all the time with WP:TW and they don't get called out for it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tele, are you edit-stalking me again? I don't necessarily think that there is anything wrong with the policy behind the edits; what I have a problem with is being incivil and ignoring BRD or the context of the article when doing so. Delta has done this in my opinion; you have as well in the past (which is why your twinkle was removed). Many people who have ignored BRD or been incivil have lost Twinkle access or even been blocked Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A BRD essay doesn't excuse an NFCC policy. Is that a threat? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say

Nicely said Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Unfortunately, it's not going to put the snow back on the mountain the way things work around here. Regardless, it had to be said. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...at the same time, as much as it had to be said, there's too many around here that never would, relying on the anonimity of the internet to protect them from such action. Big of you to try, especially considering what the outcome may/may not be (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. The notification I gave to you at the time of the case opening still applies, and evidence should be added to the appropriate page before the evidence phase ends. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you please point to the arbitrator instruction asking me to be added to the case [2]? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The instruction was issued privately, over the clerks' mailing list. Clerks are as a general matter authorised to act on behalf of the Committee under arbitrator direction, such as by making announcements or adding parties to cases. If you want me to ask an arbitrator to confirm here that my action in this specific case was duly authorised, I am happy to do so. AGK [•] 21:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't question the authorization. To be clearer; I'd like to know why I was added. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you were added as a party as a direct result of the ANI thread that was open on 17 June. I am afraid that I do not know much more than that, and I am not very familiar with this dispute generally (because as a clerk I am required to remain uninvolved and be impartial). If you are especially curious, I can ask an arbitrator to comment here if you like; or you can ask one directly, if you prefer. I'm watching this page so I should see your reply. Regards, AGK [•] 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make the request to the arbitrator who requested I be added. If they don't want to be identified, that's fine. I don't care who it was; I care why. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have asked the arbitrator to comment here. Regards, AGK [•] 20:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, you were added as a party to the case because your comment to Rd232 led to a series of events that resulted in MickMacNee being indefinitely blocked; and, in particular, because concerns have been expressed that this constituted deliberate provocation of MickMacNee by you. The Committee's interest in you is thus twofold:

  1. The abrupt escalation of the disputes involving MickMacNee on June 14–17 is one of the core focal points of the case, and your actions are part of the broader context of this escalation.
  2. Your conduct is being examined to determine whether you bear any responsibility for either this incident in particular, or the broader pattern of disputes involving MickMacNee in general.

Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, I respectfully decline to participate. I have already stated very clearly that it was not my intention to provoke MickMacNee, and any assumption by anyone that I was, most especially ArbCom, is a catastrophic failure of WP:AGF. I posted an apology to MickMacNee's talk page, and an explanation at WP:AN/EW regarding my posting. In both cases I made it clear that there as no intent on my part to insult MickMacNee in any respect. Further, MickMacNee's conduct in this incident was something that I supported him in so far as my efforts to see to it that his blocks resulting from this incident were overturned, as I posted to WP:AN. If I had it in for MicKMacNee as you seem to suggest with my supposed deliberate provocation, I would never have apologized, never retracted the statement (which I did, unilaterally without being asked) and never undertaken efforts to see his blocks removed. The ArbCom case that was petitioned for preceded this incident. There is no reason to include this incident in any respect, and as it shows poorly for MickMacNee, I take the same stance as I have before. There is no reason to find fault with him for his behavior in that incident. If there is any reason to censure MickMacNee, find it in his actions prior to the petitioning for the RfArb. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you are free to refuse to participate, please be aware that, pursuant to §2.4 of the arbitration policy, doing so will not prevent the adoption of findings regarding your conduct. Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say I refuse to recognize ArbCom's role on Wikipedia. Several administrators have already found my conduct to not constitute a personal attack on MickMacNee [3][4][5]. The issue was essentially resolved before you chose to add me to the ArbCom case, and another administrator said he would not have added me to the case [6]. ArbCom of course has the liberty to sanction me in any way they wish. Regardless, it will not change my stance with regards to this incident. This is not insolence on my part; it is a careful review of what happened and my reactions in response to it to fix the problem. I have retracted the statement [7], explained myself that it was not intended as an attack [8], and made an abject apology to MickMacNee, in public, on his talk page [9]. I made it clear I had no intention of attacking him. The only thing I was attempting to do was to aid an editor, Rd232, who was under severe wikistress from incidents involving MickMacNee prior to my posting. I was trying to help, and only help. As I noted in my explanations and apology, it was an error on my part to attempt the subtle distinction I was trying to make. It's not an error I expect to ever repeat, regardless of the parties involved. I've even been an advocate for MickMacNee's blocks regarding this incident to be removed [10][11][12]. I see nothing on my part at this point that I need to make amends for, nothing on my part I need to modify to prevent future occurrences, and nothing on my part that remains unresolved regarding this incident. If I'm in error in this stance, then show it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you need to be on the defensive here, Hammersoft. The point of you being added as a party to a case isn't an indication that we have prejudged any aspect of it, simply that you have been implicated in the matter (which is plainly evident) and that you should be provided an opportunity to speak on your own behalf on the record about the matter. — Coren (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Concerns have been expressed that this constituted deliberate provocation" (Kirill) is hardly neutral. "Implicated in the matter (which is plainly evident)" (you) definition; an incriminating involvement is hardly neutral. As I said before, this is a catastrophic failure of WP:AGF. I have explained myself, and several administrators have agreed, that no personal attack was intended nor one given. I've retracted the statement, attempted to get MickMacNee unblocked (and believe I aided in the process of the indef block being removed) and have made a direct apology to MickMacNee on the matter. If that "deliberate provocation" "implicates" me, then so be it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft - I blocked Mick pretty much exactly a month before this entire bruhaha ... like I said elsewhere, you called a spade a spade. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media file File:Legoland Windsor Logo.svg and User:Adamiow/Sandbox

Thanks for your message. My apologies. I did not realise someone was removing the image from the page due to being non-free - I assumed it was Wikipedia being silly, so put it back in! Adamiow (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel UK

Thank you for actually pointing to a specific guideline the images added to "Marvel UK" had violated, rather than the other edits which kept citing guidelines that hadn't (as far as I could see reading and re-reading the page) been violated. It is somewhat trying when the same rationale for the editing out of the images keeps cropping up and no one's sensibly dialoguing in the Discussion page about it... Cheers! 82.110.160.178 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The edit summaries used by myself and others were specific and to the point. Both the referenced Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and WP:NFCC #10c say the same thing. Also note that even if you provided rationales for the use of the items on Marvel UK, they still would not be acceptable. See the article's talk page for why. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do pardon those of us who are not as familiar with these guidelines as yourselves. Kind regards.82.110.160.178 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that. NFCC issues are complex. A problem endemic to the web in general is it supports, even encourages, drilling rather than reading. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coins

I would really appreciate it if you had actually discussed the removal of the images before destroying months of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin hipwell (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the explanation

I just wanted to thank you for your explanation about NFTABLE. If you hadn't responded to me, I probably would have seen this and assumed it was in error. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me on what needed to be done to the logo for it to be used on the Disney Junior (Australia and New Zealand) Forbesy 777 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of File:Győri ETO KC logo.png

Hello!

Thank you for drawing the attention on the misuse and explained the whys on my talk page. Very appreciated. -- Thehoboclown (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


User talk:Dapi89

Hey there Hammersoft, Sorry about deleting the other persons edit i was meaning to undo the block message that he deleted. My bad. Goldblooded (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Dapi already removed it himself [13], so there's no need to restore it. Thanks though. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Dapi89's talk page.
Message added 09:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Adams (comics)

I have responded on Δ's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook a Public Domain?

Hello Hammersoft! I was asking that is facebook a public domain or not? If it is, can you tell me how can I upload image from facebook? User:BrianZhukov 13:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, Facebook images are not public domain by default. Sorry :( --Hammersoft (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hi. I refer to your recent removal of a Commons image at Nuclear meltdown, with the edit summary: "This image use does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c..." I thought Commons was a repository of free content images and so don't follow your reasoning. Johnfos (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked more closely at the situation now and you are quite right. Thanks for the clarification. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Musial

Is this o.k.? User:Jeffrey M Dean/Userboxes/Musial —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks

Hello - thanks for telling me about non free images that I used on my userpage. I'm new to this so just learning! Thanks again. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MTorrent pic

Better check your script. I'm not sure what the heck is going on with the link between μTorrent and File:UTorrent.png, but no redirects seem to be involved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not using a script. I've never used a script to assist editing. The image has a rationale for μTorrent, which is NOT ΜTorrent. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, really? Click on both the links in your above message, and see how many different articles you load. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try clicking on the picture in the article, then on the link in the file. Note how many redirects you hit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the rationale doesn't point to where it was actually used. That is required under WP:NFCC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In what way does it not point to where it's used? Follow the links! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you look at the version of the image prior to today's edit [15], there is a rationale for µTorrent . If you note where the image is used, as seen on the bottom of the description page, it says "MTorrent". I grant there appears to be a very odd software issue that does NOT involve redirects. Might be an ASCII table thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just undid that edit -- there's only one article, so we don't need two NFURs for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • its an odd bug with lower case unicode and first letters being capital. ΔT The only constant 16:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's not a bug. And really, wow. Brain-dead edits like this are precisely the problem you keep demanding everyone shows evidence of on ANI, Hammersoft. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I encourage you to read and abide by WP:CIVIL. Sarek, Δ, and I were having a cordial discussion. It's an understandable mistake to make. You don't have to refer to me or my edits as "brain dead". Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And whether or not it is a technical bug, it is a rather unique software quirk that I also ran into years ago. ΔT The only constant 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a software quirk (or at least not one that anyone who knows that Wikipedia capitalises first letters is unaware of): it's a language quirk (capital mu being M). And while making that mistake once is perfectly forgivable, turning around seven minutes later and reverting it out of the article again isn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look at the above discussion please. Please note the date/time stamps. I wasn't aware of the issue until afterwards. Wikipedia editors are not expected to be perfect. This has been upheld by ArbCom several times. Drop it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • SarekOfVulcan, 11:48: "There's some sort of weird issue here, but the links are good"
              • Hammersoft, 11:49: "See my response to you on my talk page; there is no rationale for this usage on this page."
              • So you were quite aware that there was an issue, but you chose to revert anyway instead of taking the time to look at the issue. Perfection isn't required -- listening is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Look, a mistake was made. I did what I thought was the right thing at the moment that I did it. I made a mistake. Pure and simple. I admit the mistake, I haven't repeated it again now that I know about it, and now that I know it's a potential issue for the software, I'll be more careful on special characters. Now, if you want to crucify me, burn me at the stake, what have you, have at it. But, it will NOT happen on my talk page. This is turning a flippin' ant's leg (much less the ant hill) into Mt. Everest. Enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

For making an astonishing 20 edits in one minute, here is a brownie. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I get double brownies if I do 40 in a minute? By the way, I'm allergic to chocolate. Thank you, I'm now in anaphylactic shock. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you do 40 edits in a minute, you get double chocolate brownies and a giant chocolate bunny, regardless of your supposed allergies (for which I'll need a reliable source). Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do I suspect this is one of those moments where someone's saying "I'll give you (big prize) for walking into that unshielded, high velocity fan"? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it wasn't really 20 edits in one minute. It was 20 alt-shift-s's in 1 minute, preceded by many minutes of setting up the saves. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, but I still wanted to give you a brownie. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did 52 in a minute. This is a record for me. People have complained about this sort of thing before, and I expect people will complain again. But, it's not a bot, it's not even script assisted, and it's not bot like. It's how I prefer to edit with multiple similar edits, sort of like an assembly line. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that might help me get over the anaphylactic shock Eagles gave me with the brownie (see section above) :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An injection for you!

Epinephrine
To help with your brownie problem:) DMacks (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Images

Helllo. I see you've now removed ALL images in lists. Last time you left in the 2010 ones; what promped you to do it now? GSorby - Talk! 20:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I know but you left in the 2010 ones on your last patrol. Why did you leave them, then remove them now? (Bearing in mind this was nearly a year) GSorby - Talk! 20:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A year ago? I don't know. I've slept since then :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then never mind. I don't see how you could agree to those rules. Even you and I can see a couple of images weren't doing that much harm. 'Spose that's how it goes. :-) GSorby - Talk! 20:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the number, but the way they are used. I saw the two new images on the 2011 list and saw the rationales were so generic as to be able to apply to any image used on any list of EastEnders characters page. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swaythling cup.jpg

Hello, I have seen you have removed this image from the World Table Tennis Championships page. I can understand there is an issue with the image, can you please give me some help for fixing the problem? In particular it is an image of the most important trophy assigned in the World Table Tennis Championships, so I guess it is important to be included in the World Table Tennis Championships. I'm in contact with the people of the ITTF (Internationa Table Tennis Federation), they informally allowed me in using the image. --Cialo (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. If you to obtain release of an image under a free license of the cup from them, there are instructions on how to do so at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. As for fixing the problem, there are instructions on how to create a fair use rationale at WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answers

Please look at my talk page and my replies to the warning. Also, look at the other persons talk page. I have left messages on both. Do you believe these are fair claims? Puffin Let's talk! 16:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm interested in you providing diffs for the assertions you are making against Δ. Please provide them at WP:WQA. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page...

Can you pretend that you haven't looked at is sense you left your message. I haven't looked at your response yet, since I cannot believe what an absolute twat I was in my response. Really appalling, no one deserves to be spoken to like that, trying again with the giant cork removed from my arse.

So can you please give me maybe six more minutes to stuff my humanity back in and complete my altered reply? - Aaron Brenneman 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • (laughing collegially) ok, that's very funny :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry that took so long, thanks for waiting, going to sleep, probably delirious. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wood River Photo

Regarding File:Wood River 02.png, that photo is from a document prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, a United States Government agency. The photo is therefore Public Domain. The BLM document was posted on-line by the State of Oregon so that is the on-line source, but the photo is still Public Domain. Someone previously changed the original Federal Government tag to an incorrect Fair Use tag. Please call up the source document—it was prepared by the BLM and the photo is on the cover with the BLM source shown just below the photo. I have corrected the photo page by removing the incorrect tags and adding additional text directing people to check the original source document.--Orygun (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=438581962"