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 John Cline (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 19 February 2012 (→‎Seeking your opinion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Hammersoft Talk News: And yet again the Foundation demonstrates stupidity

Yesterday, the Wikipedia servers reported this to me: "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties." The irony of it was almost funny. I was thinking to myself, 'I'm supposed to be surprised'?

Recently the would-be saviors of our programming soul decided to disable the namespace select feature when you are looking at a given editor's contributions. This is a heavily used feature for a broad variety of reasons, not least of which is vandal fighting. There was apparently no significant prior discussion of this change. It was applied, though not fielded, in May of 2011. See [1]. When it was fielded, a hailstorm of complaints were raised. See bug report and Village Pump discussion. There does not appear to be anyone who isn't a MediaWiki developer who is supporting this change. Now, this is a problem, but it's not the core problem.

The core problem this particular debacle highlights is the organizational immaturity demonstrated by the Wikimedia Foundation. They are responsible for the MediaWiki software development. They are also responsible for this project. The developers are well intended. But, to allow them to field software that has not undergone any sort of non-developer oversight and review is mind bogglingly stupid. Any mature software development company knows not to have its developers conduct usability testing, validation, marketing, and public relations, not to mention documentation, and deployment. Yet, this is precisely the organizational structure the Wikimedia Foundation has demonstrated. They've allowed for an organizational structure where the developers have a direct, unchecked path to releasing software, directly impacting the projects the Wikimedia Foundation hosts. They also appear to be following the highly amateurish code and fix software development model.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a US$10m company with 75 employees. Apparently not one of them has ever thought "Gosh, maybe somebody should take a look at releases the developers are pushing before going live?". There is absolutely no excuse for the abject organizational failure demonstrated here by the Wikimedia Foundation. I wish I could say this is isolated, but it isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum the change that removed the namespace select has now been undone. See [2]; "Revert r88025... People on-wiki really hate this". Gee, ya think?

Story Comments

Can't say I disagree with you, having recently dealt with the WMF extensively on this issue which was recently reported in the signpost. FWIW, I run a tool which can search through a user's contributions and filter by namespace, or filter by any wildcard search in the page title. For instance, here are your edits to the Wikipedia talk namespace and here are your edits to DRV in 2009. There is also a tool which can search through your edit summaries, optionally with wildcards as well. I've always thought that the options that WMF software gives you for searching through contributions have not been powerful enough (which is why I made the tools in the first place), but for them to consider getting rid of the namespace filter demonstrates further that they are out of touch with their contributors. —SW— gab 14:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, they've re-enabled the namespace select feature. But, the amateurish organizational structure that allowed for this situation to develop of course remains in place. I agree they are out of touch with their contributors. They also have demonstrated a lack of understanding of organizational life cycles, and with this incident demonstrated an inability to be an effective software development company. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UMass-Lowell-logo.png and your userpage

I regret being unaware of this. However, by editing my personal userpage, as opposed to simply telling me to remove the image myself, not only have you overstepped, but you have also violated the Wikipedia core principle of good faith. Shame on you! Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:AGF. What Hammersoft did wasnt an act of bad faith. Rather it was enforcement of policy. WP:NFCC is not optional. He could have left you a note, but that can sometimes take more than a week for a user to read it, and then most just ignore the warnings. Removal is the simplest method and the only method proven to be effective. ΔT The only constant 04:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have complied and am on every day. Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be blunt, without being disrespectful, I don't need your permission to edit your userpage, nor as Δ notes is asking you to remove it an effective tool to enforce this policy. There is in fact a bot that occasionally goes around and does these removals. It does not make any effort to ask people to comply with policy. There simply isn't any wiggle room on the policy. It's never a situation where we ask nicely and hope that some day you might remove it. It must be complied with, period. That you restored the image to your userpage after it had already been removed for violating this policy is proof enough of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You certainly don't need permission; good faith is associated rather with showing mutual respect for your peers and giving the benefit of the doubt. As for my returning the img the first time, I was unaware that you removed it, and of the violation; I thought that image was deleted, so I went to the college article and got what I thought was the filename of a different img. I obviously overlooked your edit. BTW, I have noticed that your entourage is quick to answer for you on your talk page. Word of advice: that seriously weakens your presence! Take charge of your island :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an entourage. Nobody owns my talk page, including me. If they want to respond, that's called "Wikipedia". The same applies to your userpage. I don't need your permission to edit it any more than I need permission from you to edit the UMass article. If you find this offensive, rude, what have you, it might interest you to read the note below the "Save page" button when you are editing a page. Good day, --Hammersoft (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep within context...the way one deals with others, and answering on one's own behalf are not matters of permission ;) Peace, and well wishes! Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you continue to maintain the belief that people should be acting as you suggest they should, you will be disappointed here. Nobody is prohibited from answering someone here on my talk page. This is a basic concept for Wikipedia. In fact, even our founder User:Jimbo Wales's userpage says right on the second line, "You may edit this page!" Permission, politeness, whatever you want to call it, the effect is the same. This applies to your userpage as well. You had an image on your userpage that violated policy. I removed it, noting why in the edit summary. You restored it, I removed it again and left you a message as to why. You haven't restored it. That should end this. There's no further need for discussion, is there. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being annoyed when someone hysterically edits your user page is ok. And its no disappointment; I was bitching ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 03:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of All My Children miscellaneous characters

Hi there. A few of your edits to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters were unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in reverting the article to repair some serious cut-and-paste pagemoves/merging-without-attribution during AfDs. As your edits were constructive and removing non-free images, you might want to look over the article again and see what, if any, needs to be done. My apologies for the trouble. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (AQ)

Hi Hammersoft, thanks for talking me out of retiring and bringing some sanity back to my talk page. I don't remember if I ever apologized for my rudeness towards you back when I first started editing. I am truly sorry for my actions then. Thanks for setting me straight with the NFCC policy then, and thanks for talking sense into me when I felt that hostility from other editors wasn't worth it. Best, Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If any of us have zero moments in our lives where we regret what we did, we're not human. If you prick yourself, do you bleed green, pink, or red? :) The pink and green bloods, not to mention the black/white (or is that white/black?), blue or green skins, were no more perfect than any of us. Even if you didn't apologize, I really didn't remember that incident. Keep doing what you're doing. You're doing it right. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. I forgot to ask you earlier. The other day I was recategorizing articles in Category:Privately held companies of the United States and I noticed that many of the text logos (i.e. File:1380ESPN.png) are tagged with Template:Non-free logo instead of Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademarked(i.e. File:ESPN wordmark.svg). Is there a noticeboard for this, or would it be fine for me to go through and correct the licenses for the images that obviously don't meet the Threshold of Originality? Best, Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to do it yourself. There's no noticeboard for it. I've done it myself on a number of occasions. I would caution you however that where the line is for the threshold of originality is very fuzzy. When in doubt, seek advice. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had planned just ignoring the image if I was in doubt. When I reuploaded File:Wise Men Consultants logo.png as a .png, I left it with a non-free logo because I wasn't sure if the objects in logo were simple enough. Whereas I changed File:TTX Company logo.png to PD-textlogo and trademark because it was a simple font. If I find any borderline cases, I'll ask you or User:Betacommand. He knows quite a bit about copyright as well, despite the constant AN/I discussions by, erm, fans of his work. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I take a line that is well away from the edge. There are fuzzy area cases that I don't change. I'm not an Intellectual property lawyer, so in cases where I think there's a chance it could be copyrighted, I stay away from changing it. Some people think poorly of me because of that. I don't care (ref the white static comments I made on your talk page). This is a long way of saying if you ask me, I'm likely to edge in favor of caution. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance is futile

Since Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Non-free images and this page seems to have revealed your true nature, the following box should go at your userpage =P


Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Toshio! That was flippin' hysterical! I've added it to my userpage :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We will assimilate your biological advancements to serve us. Failure to comply with our programming will result in termination. Resistance is futile. :) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no! Quick! Fire the ThingaMajiggerPhotonTorps before Alpha Quadrant closes me early! <shudder> :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I believe you are looking for Transphasic torpedoes. I was a bit surprised there wasn't a redirect for that entry. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Mentor

Newbie Mentor
Hi, Hammersoft!

Thanks for lending a guiding hand to a newbie such as myself. I'll follow your advice and create a new username so as not to imply affiliation with my subject. Again, many thanks and I hope to hear from you again in my future contributions. Making this my pilot project of sorts and I've already learned so much. 360training wikimaster (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I were you, I would STRONGLY re-consider any ideas you have of putting this article you have been creating into the main article namespace. It has thrice been deleted before [3]. I would instead redirect your efforts towards making a proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Also, simply changing your username isn't going to correct the underlying problem; you have a strong conflict of interest in writing about 360. No amount of renaming will change that. If the organization is truly notable, somebody will eventually write an article about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hammersoft. The current draft doesn't have any reliable third party sources. Before you move it to mainspace I would suggest you add news sources. Such as newspaper articles, magazines, books, or other media from sources known for fact checking. The article also is written in a fairly advertising tone. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles should be written in a neutral point of view. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful feedback, Hammersoft. As I mentioned on the talk pages for the page (which right now doesn't have content, by the way), I am willing to declare my interest in this subject and to have it reviewed by fellow editors. I have worked with publishing organizations both in media and in the academe and strongly believe that a review process is essential in improving the quality of knowledge being passed on to readers. I have submitted a request for this article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences . I'll follow your guidance on declaring COI so that everything will be transparent. I hope editors will be open and objective in judging the merits of this entry as well. I'll give you an update on the steps I will be taking and hope you can give me your thoughts on these. Cheers
Thank you for your feedback, Alpha Quadrant. Truly appreciate this. I have put in a lot of references on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences -- among these content from Inc.com, from Reuters and other news pages. Yes, I can provide all these references because they're just out there and all that needs to be done is to bring them into the planned wikipedia entry. Where did you see the content you reviewed by the way? There was hardly anything on the initial 360training.com that I prematurely created. Or were you referring to another page? Thanks again for taking the time to review and comment. God bless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 360training wikimaster (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove

Thank you!

Can you delete this picture:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NK_Osijek-before_1990.svg, please.

--Ivan OS 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. I'm not an administrator. You'll need to make a request at Commons, as it is hosted on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That damn thing is still there

Hi Hammersoft. File:TUOwls logo.png is listed in the 10c report as a 10c violation. Up to now I simply skipped this particular file while working through the list. It is tagged with {{PD-Textlogo}}, but due to having the rationales it keeps appearing in the report. Now I can simply ignore the file as I did before, but I believe if the logo is PD, the rationales could be discarded. Or does the fact that the symbol is a trademark require it to carry a rationale? WP:NFCC doesn't seem to address trademarks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just remove all but one of the rationales. For the last one, restructure it so it doesn't have the {{Non-free media rationale}} wrapper (that's something the report looks for), retaining the description and source. The source of course is very important. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, dump the relevant info into the {{Information}} template (which has source, authorship, etc.) and you can ditch the rationale templates together. Note that as long as we're using trademarked but PD images in an encyclopedic manner (eg not disparaging of the trademark owner), we don't worry about the IP around trademarks. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply added a plain description (see diff). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File released into public domain by person who claims to be the copyright holder

Hi, I just took a look at the Graphic Lab and saw the file at WP:GL/I#UCK. The logo looking quite complex (and thus probably passing the threshold for copyright protection) made me a bit suspicious and i checked file page. The image has been released into the public domain by the uploader who claims to possess permission to release it. Can you perhaps take a look at this? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of things to consider here. Speaking more abstractly; while it is important to assume good faith, there are different ways of viewing that assumption of good faith. We can assume, for example, that a person who downloads an image off the net and then uploads it here thinks they really did create an image using their own efforts, and thus the image is their "own work". A very, very large number of editors think this. Regardless, they're still 100% wrong. But, whether they really think that or whether they are being malicious and attempting to claim/release rights they know they don't have, the effect is the same; the image is on Wikipedia (or, as in this case, on Commons) and the provenance of the image very likely isn't the person who put it here.
  • When the image is a photograph I like to use the rule of thumb of "show me the metadata" (or exif data). Usually images that are taken off the web somewhere and uploaded here will not have metadata associated with them. If there's no metadata, it's a pretty good bet the person who uploaded it did not personally take the image. Example of this; see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olmclc-lasalle.jpg.
  • When the image is a graphic as in this case, it's not likely to ever have metadata on it (though it can). In that case, we need more definitive proof the image was released by the copyright holder. Here, we don't have that. We don't even begin to have that. Since the image is a representative badge of an organization (whether extant or no, there's usually an inheriting organization), we need proof from that organization that the image was in fact released into the public domain, or in the very least that the person claiming to release rights has authority to act on behalf of that organization. It's no different than if John Doe uploads the logo of the Carolina Panthers and claimed they were releasing rights. Just about everyone and their half brother's second cousin's pet rock's younger sister would call foul. Same applies here. That's enough on its face to place the image for deletion on Commons.
  • But wait, it gets better! If we look at the original uploader (Commons:User:Dessy92), that account was blocked two years ago for...wait for it...uploading unfree files after warnings. Ever upload done by this editor needs to be reviewed. That aside, it's a strong argument why this image needs to be treated with strong suspicion.
  • And if that wasn't enough; the KLA became the Kosovo Protection Corps. Take a look at their logo.
  • Isn't image policing fun? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (D)

I get the idea from your userpage that pasting a kitten or something here would be unwelcome, so, as a gesture of respect and wholly against my nature, I offer my thanks for your diligent tagging of promotional usernames unaccompanied by a cute picture. I think you're pretty spiffy. Keep it up, or I'll have to find some real work to do here. --Danger (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha! Nicely done! Thank you for the compliment :) And here I thought tagging promotional usernames was a thankless job. Now I'll have to go find something else to do that is thankless! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10c vios

I am curious, apart from me or you, is there anybody else who would be willing to enforce NFCC? The 10c report doesn't seem to get significantly shorter, in fact I feel the opposite is true and it seems to be growing constantly. Unfortunately I no longer have the time right now to do enforcement on a large scale. So do you know anybody who would be willing to jump in? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 10c enforcement is an absolutely thankless task (to which I say "Cool!" :)). There's few people who are willing to jump in. People think you're being an ass because you remove 10c violations rather than 'fixing' the rationales to support the use. They also think you're being deliberately disruptive. They also think you're ruining the encyclopedia because X prized image was removed from Y prized article. And for what? Some sick fascination/satisfaction in removing something? No, not much reward in it at all. So, no, there's few people who are willing to step in and do 10c enforcement. Δ used to do a lot of it. But, ArbCom banned him from doing it, possibly forever. I've seen User:Beetstra do some of this work, but I think it's been quite a while since he's done any of it.
  • It's a hard nut to crack; lots of people come to Wikipedia, and really don't have a clue about NFCC policy. If you can add an image to an article, add it. There's no walls to bump into with regards to rationales. So, most editors never think to do it. Bumping into walls causes correction in behavior. It's the only tool available really. But even then, people read WP:FURG and go cross-eyed. So, they apply templated rationales without having a real clue about what it all means. Check out the rationale at File:Wimpy kid.jpg. It's a templated rationale. The kicker? The purpose of use (which is almost always the weakest part of the rationale): "to use". So, it's ok to add a non-free image to the project so long as you let everyone know that your reason for using it ...is to use it. <facepalm>
  • One way that I've seen some success in this arena is to target those non-free files that are used a lot; this report. Δ's check marked those that have rationales for each use. I still check those occasionally. But, the ones that aren't checked are ripe for policing. Today's top of the hit parade is File:Studio 23 logo.svg, used 28 times...and has exactly one rationale. So, 27 10c violations just on one file. Targeting such files has seen this report become considerably 'cleaner', in that far fewer files are missing rationales, and the big abusers of 10c get to bump into a wall about enforcement.
  • Sadly, it really ends up being a game of whack-a-mole. Editors slap templated rationales on, so this report looks cleaner, but in reality there's still mass overuse of non-free images. That's the real problem. This report tends to be very useful to address that. I've kept loose track of that report over time. See User:Hammersoft/tick_file#Overuse. Roughly 12% reduction in overuse in one year. Slow, but good progress. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL that thing made my day. Of course all of this in my opinion highlights that the overall system is flawed. And in my opinion the WMF has shown a great amount of incompetence regarding its ability to address the core issues at Wikipedia lately (I mean yeah, nice to try to get more editors involved but wait: boxes with clickable stars and an extra button to award kittens and cakes?). And as one sees this leads to some serious issues =P. But what gives, they live in their world and we (the volunteer editors) live in ours it seems. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I believe the Foundation is grossly incompetent." 👍 2 users agree with this.
  • THANK YOU! I was wondering if there was a template for that. I fumbled around trying to mimic one before. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add another +1 from me. I never really thought about the Foundation until I participated in the disastrous India Education Program. Take a look at that if you'd like a headache. Danger (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added :) If you want a headache, I can pass a long several arenas where you can get one :) It's interesting. The Foundation is an entity that I would bet 7 of 10 people here have never heard of. They're very much in the background. We operate basically independently from them...or so it would seem. The reality is otherwise. They affect everything here in one form or another. But because they operate largely in the background, we don't immediately ascribe problems here as being devolved from incompetence by the Foundation. Yet, quite a few problems can be directly traced back to their incompetence. I'll poke around the IEP. I'm a glutton for headaches, I guess :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I've already bumped into IEP [4]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talk. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess reconsidered (a bit)

I think I will just have to make sure I don't get dragged into all this too much. So visiting Wikipedia each day at a fixed time interval should work. I will try to get as much stuff done as I can in that time and simply have to make sure at the end of that interval to say: "Nope. Time to log out. Come back tomorrow." There are simply too few people working on the NFCC issues. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, I changed my userpage to reflect that. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nicely done :) Yeah, it's easy to get too suck up into it. There are way too few people working on NFCC issues. I wish there were more, but there's just no reward in it. Few people are willing to do the work knowing they're burning their wiki-bridges. Or is that wiki-britches? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIV problems

I meant to AIV|f the entry before, but before I could tell you that, I got quadruple edit conflicted and then your entry got blocked anyway, and then I got edit-conflicted on my own talk page. Guess I need to learn to type faster. Sorry for the confusion. Wknight94 talk 21:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can't type at 200 wpm, I'll ban you from the project. How dare you be so slow! :) I mangled the diffs, which would make it less than easy to see the time stamps. My fault too. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, wasn't your time stamps. When I hit "edit" on AIV, my entry was last, but by the time the edit page actually came up, your entry had snuck in and I honestly didn't see it at all. So I need to learn how to hit the Edit link faster too! Sheesh... Wknight94 talk 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10c proposal

I would appreciate your input at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 41#10c violations. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beta's restrictions

I'll move this here. The restrictions were designed to permit Beta to edit, and I was on the committee that wrote them. Our goal at the time was to find a way to allow him to edit, rather than prevent it, and at the time he accepted the restrictions in lieu of a site ban. Unfortunately, since then Beta has pursued a path of repeatedly violating the restrictions, which has led us to this point. Pursuing 2,000 edits with the same edit summary is not the way to go for him, and it is true that he will find it difficult to continue editing under his restrictions if that is the only sort of editing he is willing to perform. But that is not because the restrictions prevent him from editing, it is because he is trying to continue doing exactly the sort of editing the restrictions are intended to stop: unannounced maintenance scripts run across multiple articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • And as I've said elsewhere and others agree in spirit, the paintbrush you're using is so broad as to prevent editing. I hope he accepts my request to operate on his behalf. However, in my own assumption of bad faith, I believe he'll still be bludgeoned with his restrictions because it wasn't he who asked or because the request was made days, months, years after he had performed a given "type" of edit. I'm going to make requests for every type of edit he does. It's the only way I can see he will not be bludgeoned with his restrictions again. As is, he's being told "Oh sure, you can edit" and then "Oh wait, you added a whitespace? You're blocked". He's been set up for failure no matter what he does. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe nobody would be complaining if he were not running large-scale maintenance tasks, and if they did complain nobody would take them seriously. The underlying problem is that Beta is doing exactly what led to the restrictions in the first place. If he were to take the clear message to do something else, the problems would go away. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respect, any belief that Δ can edit without controversy, regardless of what he does, ignores the history behind this case. There is a cadre of extremely vocal opponents who will gladly take any chance available to attack Δ. If there's a pattern, it is this group of people. The message you are giving him is "stop editing". I think it would be instructional if you were to outline, specifically, what you think he CAN do. Can he add a whitespace? Can he add a stub tag? Can he remove a dead image link? Can he repoint a template redirect to the proper template name? Can he repoint an image redirect to its proper name? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To take a particular example: he could write a new article from scratch. All of your examples have a maintenance flavor, and maintenance is exactly what he should avoid doing. The point of the edit restrictions was, among other things, to permit him to work on specific articles of interest to him. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so he should cease maintenance tasks? The only think he can do now is create articles? Where in his restrictions does it state the intent to restrict him to articles of subject interest to him? Where? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under your broad paintbrush interpretation of "pattern", wouldn't creating 25 articles from scratch constitute a pattern? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming I would act unreasonably. I would not. I can tell you as a member of the committee that wrote the restrictions that one clear idea was that the restrictions would allow him to perform article creation and other content work, while restricting him from the maintenance work that he has so often proved unable to perform without controversy. I am certain he is aware of this. If you think he is not you are welcome to tell him again.

The restrictions, however, were even more generous, because they allowed him to perform some limited maintenance tasks. For example, he could rename an image on a few articles, or add a new template to a handful of articles, and not violate the restriction. This was meant to make it more difficult for other editors to complain about his editing, because we carved out an exemption for this sort of thing, as long as it was under 25 articles. Remember that the committee was trying to allow him to edit, if he were to avoid the sort of editing that invariably causes trouble, while at the same time we were tying to satisfy a widespread desire to prevent him from causing further disruption. This is why the restrictions do not literally say "no maintenance tasks".

Nevertheless, one clear and apparent goal of the restrictions is to make it difficult for him to engage in large-scale, unannounced maintenance. Unfortunately this is exactly what he has been doing with his "cleanup" edits. I am not looking to a legalistic issue by trying parse words. I am looking at the fundamental spirit of the restrictions, and Beta's refusal to heed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with Betacommand's recent edits. He is performing non-controversial maintenance. Personally, I think editing restrictions 1, and to some extent 3, are utterly ridiculous. Unfortunately, Betacommand has made enough enemies, and it is quite unlikely they will ever be repealed. No editor can reasonably work with the restrictions imposed, because under the current wording of the restrictions, anything can be interpreted as a "pattern". He would have to make under 25 edits a month to avoid getting blocked for "violating" the restrictions. Even then, there would be editors crying foul, because there is mention of any time restriction. There would be comments like "He made 26 similar edits in two months, that violates his restrictions." Either make the restrictions clearer, or get rid of em. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beta has proven, though an extremely long history, that he is not suited for performing non-controversial maintenance. I cannot say why this is, but it is patently clear at this point. If the situation is as bad as you suggest, then in fact he would be unable to edit. But I claim it is not so bad, and that if he were to put his mind to other things he could be productive without causing so much controversy. Nobody would complain about a "pattern" of writing 25 new articles, and if they did nobody would take them seriously. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at serious loggerjams with this idea of no, he can't do anything he currently does, but you're being a nice guy and giving him leeway to edit. Δ will attract controversy for ANYthing he does. Ignoring the role the community has in this insane situation is improper. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the committee's intent was to prevent him from performing maintenance tasks, then why is that not stipulated in the restrictions? No such restriction exists. Full stop. You can't point to that restriction being in play. Either provide proof that he is prevented from performing maintenance tasks, or drop it.
  • You state as an example that he could rename an image on a few articles. Yet, you find fault with him for removing images from a few articles. Would you please clarify how the former is ok, but the latter is not? Apparently, if he does this 24 times he's ok. But, if he does it 1 more time, days later, it could be construed as not ok.
  • The fundamental spirit you allude to may in fact exist in your heart and mind, and perhaps in those of other people. But, it's not stipulated within the restrictions. Without that stipulation, there is no way that Δ can be expected to abide by the restrictions. You're effectively saying, "Do as I feel, not as I say". That's an impossible construct. As is, he now has to read your mind as to what is and is not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I told you why it was not there: to try to prevent other people from wikilawyering it. Perhaps we were too generous? Instead, Beta is required to get permission ahead of time for any pattern of 25 or more edits to different articles, among other things. The point was that he should make sure never to get close to the limit. This has the clear effect of making it difficult for him to perform large-scale maintenance tasks, and that was very intentional. What I expect is for Beta to edit in good faith. He is aware of the point of the restrictions, even if he refuses to accept it. He was around when they were placed. I find it too legalistic to claim that Beta somehow did not know the circumstances behind the restrictions and is now entitled to forget that history when reading them. That is not the way things work on Wikipedia, editors are expected to follow the spirit as well as the letter of policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your intent was to avoid wikilawyering, you failed. It's being used in precisely that way. You're expecting him to just 'know' what not to do, yet fail to give him instruction on what is and is not permissible. Either specify what he can and can not do, or give it up. As is, according to you, he shouldn't be doing maintenance. Instead, he should focus on article creation. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is my advice, but the restrictions were meant to make it easier for him. I will point at [5] for an archive of the discussion on the sanctions, and with that I think I have said everything I can say about this at the moment. If you look through the archive, you will see the degree to which I advocated for Beta's continued ability to edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I want you to have a look at my mainspace contributions here. Look at edits with time stamp 22:01 21 October 2011. 15 edits, all removing the same image from an array of associated articles. That, to me, is clearly a pattern. If I were do the same edit, but instead spread them out over 2 years, would you call that a pattern? What if it was a variety of different images across a number of unrelated articles? On the ends, there are extremes; clear cases where we can say "this is a pattern" and cases where we can say "this isn't a pattern". But, we have an enormous amount of grey area that your committee did nothing to define. The result is a structure that is inherently flawed. There's no time definition, no specification as to whether kind of edit is intended or specific edits are intended, whether articles are associated or not, etc. It's incredibly vague. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about 15 edits over two years; we are talking about 2,000 edits in two months, by an editor who is meant to obtain permission before performing 25 edits of the same kind. I do not see how to reasonably characterize that as an attempt to work within the restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm asking you to define pattern. You're avoiding it. Please, answer the questions. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave you two patterns: the image maintenance and the CSS/wikitable syntax changing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which aren't patterns. I would appreciate it if you would work to help define this massive grey area. Two examples that you think are patterns (when several others disagree) isn't it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since he hasn't explained what a pattern is, I have started a proposal to clarify the restrictions. This will hopefully resolve the issue for the most part. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording might need some tweaking, but I agree it needs to be more tightly defined. Right now, the restriction is being used as a bludgeoning tool. No matter what Δ does, he can be criticized. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Whilst we may not often agree with each other on the subject of Δ's editing, I'd like to thank you for your excellent work in enumerating his tasks on WP:VPP; your work may hopefully put this to rest for good. I think with clear guidelines as to what he is permitted to do on an automated basis this will allay the concerns of many Wikipedians (including myself) and make review of his scripts' modifications easier (since people will know what it should be doing). It's a shame that he didn't post these proposals himself, though, and I really hope his communication will improve as a result of this. You appear to be good, however, at helping him through this, and I am extremely grateful for your efforts towards bringing this to resolution. I genuinely hope he will keep to the proposals you have placed there, and those that he brings himself to VPP, when making automated edits -- it will put a permanent stop to this perennial, idiotic circus. --Tristessa (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the compliments. I strongly disagree with your actions, but I appreciate that we can still be at the same table. I agree it is a circus. But, I bear no false hopes that this will put things to rest. Δ's presence on the project is so abhorrent to some that this will never ever be put to rest. This will change some aspects of the discussion, but it will not end the circus. More like end of the show in the first ring, now have a look at the second ring. This isn't to say that I think Δ doesn't have a role in this. His style is something that grates on some. All of us have shortcomings. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's inexorably sad, no matter how one looks at it, that it took me blocking his (productive) editing to force communication with the rest of the Wikipedia community. This is what needs to change. He needs to be more proactive with dealing with other editors so there is no ambiguity about what he is doing, when and why -- and whilst I accept that in Δ's case he is required to go a considerable "extra mile" in that regard, the reason for this "extra mile" is due effectively to his failure to communicate in the first place. I'm quite sure there would be less of a lynch mob under circumstances that he started talking properly and spontaneously; his recent responses are definitely an improvement but motivated by the situation of sanctions being enforced rather than a desire to form consensus. It may well feel unjust to Δ that this circumstance has arisen, but it is his style of interaction which has engendered this inequality. He seems to want to find ways of violating the spirit of his sanctions without the letter, rather than working within the restricted mandate the community has permited him, and this is one part of your assistance to him that I don't think is helping. Might I ask if you would consider talking to Δ carefully and informing him that the next stop is liable to be a lengthy block irrespective of the merits of the situation, suggesting that he talk even more than he is right now? Thank you, Hammersoft, for your help in this. --Tristessa (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He seems..." attribution and speculation. Δ isn't the best communicator. That angers some people here. Not one of us here is perfect. Blocking him in order to start a conversation about him is wholly improper. More than 20,000 words of conversation, 60+ pages happened without him being involved. Things were percolating along fine. His edits had been previously reviewed and determined to not be a pattern. Then, he gets blocked for the same sort of edits. This is out of line. Mind you, I don't blame you per se. I do strongly disagree with your actions, but the greater problem is the community has tied itself into a Gordian knot with respect to the sanctions. There is no possible way that Δ can adequately comply. You are every bit as much of a victim of this situation as Δ is. You made a catastrophically poor decision to block him. But, it's like you heading down a highway at 100kn/hr with no prior warning that there's a 90 degree turn 100 feet in front of you, and a stand of trees to crash into. That's the circumstance the community has created. Worse, when you end up in the trees, it's Δ that gets blamed for it even though he didn't do a damn thing. I will not be telling him to expect a lengthy block. That would be tantamount to ensuring that he knows the sky is blue. The bigger issue I'm trying to fix is the train wreck the community has gotten itself into. You could choose to work to fix that, or you could choose to remain a victim of it and block him again. Your choice, but consider reading this. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify, of course, I didn't block him to force him into dialogue -- but it did certainly did have that side effect, and he simply won't discuss anything unless he's blocked or in impending danger of being blocked, or so it seems. This makes sorting out the community's perception of his editing and intent extremely difficult, as I know you're fully aware of. For example, his response on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_.CE.94 really doesn't do him any favours; I tried to word my statement there as neutrally as possible to avoid any condemnation of Δ, but I feel his own words look so bad that nobody could have formulated something to say about him that's so damaging. Yes, I agree that it's hard to make administrative judgements where sanction formulation is weak and interpretation appears to diverge somewhat with the written sanctions; because it's almost impossible to check actions actions on an ambiguous sanction, it raises the ire of a considerable contingent of editors. I confess that I really wasn't expecting quite the magnitude of negative response that the block has received; I had thought it comparatively non-controversial, which must mean I am interminably stupid. --Tristessa (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't force him into dialogue. He's barely been a participant. But, like throwing a match into a room full of gas, the results of blocking Δ are predictable whether he's involved or not. Now you know. People don't like his communication style. But, to say he won't discuss issues is provably false. When people are polite, approach him with details, and work with him rather than attacking him out of the box, he responds well. He's not verbose, but he responds well. But, far too often people come at him with pitchforks and then complain because he doesn't respond well. You're not interminably stupid. I'm the only certified idiot here, and I refuse to share the title! I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you're relatively new to the Δ arena. Lack of experience <> stupidity. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ's editing restrictions

I made a proposal regarding Δ's editing restrictions that (if passed) should end the controversies over when his edits are a pattern and when not. The proposal is at WP:VPR#Proposal. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I saw it. Mulling it. The problem with proposals (on anything) is if the subject matter is contentious, the longer the wording of the proposal the more likely it is to fail. I think, for example, removing the bit about MOS edits not requiring prior permission could be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the text of the restriction and made a new sub-proposal WP:VPR#Proposal n+5. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original restriction was 56 words long. Now, we're up to 365 in n+8, more than 6 times as long. The longer it becomes, the more opportunity there will be for wikilawyers to find a loophole, find something with which to bludgeon Δ. We absolutely need to define "pattern" if this restriction is going to stand though. Conflicting needs. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this could be defined without loopholes with much fewer words. The fewer words we use, the more chance there is for an overly broad classification of Δ's edits (such as in the current formulation with "Pattern"), thus leaving room for accusations that can be neither proven nor disproven. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps back to the "problem". It's kinda like this; we're desperate to identify the answer, but even if by some miracle we define it, it will be meaningless. We haven't actually identified the problem. The answer we are attempting to update is more than three years old now. Plenty of Δ's opponents will still complain that he's a screaming asshole who deserves to be lynched. A more reasonable presumption is that the problem as was three years ago is not the problem as is now. Mind, I'm not suggesting we start a new thread about Δ to identify what problems he has now. That will be a useless dramafest. Better; a working group committed to developing a reasoned approach. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think of something like setting up a task force that monitors what Δ does? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it could work, but it would HAVE to have the backing of ArbCom, else the community would scream high holy and it would carry no authority. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to change the restriction, it only needs an addendum - as long as editors who see a pattern discuss this on e.g. AN/I ánd with Δ. If Δ then continues while consensus seems to be that it is a pattern, and there is no VPP consensus that it is fine, then that is block-worthy. Patterns are inevitable, there will be new patterns, some VPP approved patterns form new patterns when done together (13 of pattern 'a' and 13 of pattern 'b' which together form 26 edits of pattern 'c'), etc. Sure, Δ should ask for exemption on those recognised, but it should not be that one single admin can a) say something is a pattern, b) that Δ says that he does not think it is a pattern, and continues, and that c) the same admin blocks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think at this point we need to reinvent the wheel. The current available means to rectify this situation satisfactorily (to anyone's liking at all) have all failed. Since ArbCom has hamstrung itself in limiting case presentations to 500 words or less, it's impossible for this case to be properly brought before ArbCom, so that is out too. Further, I've e-mailed two members of ArbCom directly on the Δ issue and have to date received nothing back * . The request for clarification has gone nowhere, and has just provided another platform for people to attack Δ (an admin, no less). So, my faith in ArbCom processes to resolve this is extremely low. I don't know what the answer is, other than 42. So, winding up the spaghetti machine and firing rapid-fire at the wall and seeing what sticks, I've started User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae. At least that can become a tool to contradict people who insist on saying he does no good. I'm open to other ideas. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* I just received a message back from one member of ArbCom. We'll see where it goes. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ vitae

You might want to add Δbot. This bot seems to be running since mid 2010 without any major issues. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to add it! It's not a closed page, at least not to productive edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Penn Shield

Hey, thanks for catching that with the Penn shield. Much appreciated. The Haz talk 22:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue?

Hi Hammersoft!

Was just wondering, do you remember this?

and would that policy, as outlined, apply to this? Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same issue applies. A cast photo will do just fine, and should replace the three images on the CSI article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Europe '72 TCR album covers

Greetings, Hammersoft. I have started a discussion about a recent edit of yours, which removed some album covers from an article. Feel free to join in, at Talk:Europe '72: The Complete Recordings#Individual album covers. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 27, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Instead of [6], why don't you add a proposal to remove all sanctions on the Workshop page? That would be simple and constructive. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To both; I don't know how ArbCom cases are supposed to work. I know I made a statement in the statements section on the case's main page. The statements section is now closed. So, I've no idea what to do. I'm not an ArbCom expert. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know enough about the Workshop though, more than I do anyway. I see others have posted proposals there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the workshop page would be an affirmation that the process in place is correct. The workshop page is based off of the evidence page. The proposed decision page is based off of the workshop page. The final decision is based off of the proposed decision page. ALL of this is a house of cards, because the evidence page is based on a page that has no direction. The foundation is silt. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can use either Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3 to talk about the wider general scope of the case or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence to talk specifically about the evidence phase. –xenotalk 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where you are asking me to post it is a closed discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can go ahead and post a new, non-closed section. The closed discussion is just the original case statements by non-parties. And if you don't see a reply, ping one or all of the drafting arbitrators to attend to your query. –xenotalk 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Companions of Honour

Err, sir, can I keep the images until i end the construction of the article?--46.246.209.29 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you can't. Further, attempting to force them back on in violation of our WP:NFCC policy via attempting to trump with IAR and NOTLAW will not stand. Just because IAR exits doesn't mean all other policies can be ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heads up

Ive tweaked tools:~betacommand/nfcc/pages_with_excessive_nfcc.html so that the check link goes to the removal tool instead of just a checking tool, take a look and let me know what you think. ΔT The only constant 01:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks fine. I'll try it out when I come across a candidate page. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to the parties on the Betacommand 3 arbitration case

Drafting arbitrator User:Kirill Lokshin has posted some questions to the parties. As you are either an involved party or have presented evidence in this case, your input is sollicited. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Δ

I saw your reply at my talk page, but I have no idea what to say. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod of List of rapid application development tools

After an IP user commented on the talk page, I removed the {{prod}} tag you placed on List of rapid application development tools. I can see reasons to delete and reasons to keep, so I took it to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rapid application development tools. --Pnm (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cover Gallery

Saw the note accompanying the deletion of the cover gallery on THE WEEK page. I think it is unfair as Wikipedia is encyclopedic. The intention is to provide all available information, not just ones that spark a discussion. As and when a student of journalism or magazine design comes to the page for design information, it should be available. It took me the good part of a year to get clearance from the magazine and collect the covers. And in one fell swoop, it is gone. The visuals are not free, but the information is free. And, that's what matters. Mathewkochi (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getting permission to use the covers on Wikipedia is really of no use to us. In fact, permission to use is a speedy deletion criteria (see {{Db-f3}}). We either use materials under a free license that permits commercial uses, or we consider work to be non-free and used here under terms of fair use. In the latter case, images must pass our very stringent Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Under that, we can't use non-free imagery just because we think it improves the article. A single identifying cover in the infobox is fine. But, including multiple covers without having any sourced discussion regarding the evolution of the covers is not and never will be acceptable. If you believe this is wrong, you can make a request to change the policy by raising the issue at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are pushed into the corner, just invent your own rules

See User talk:Fram#Your Arbitration evidence is too long. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kubica crash.jpg

You removed the Fair Use Rationale for this image's use on 2007 Canadian Grand Prix with the edit summary "group rationales are inappropriate". While I do not know if that is the case or not it seems plausible. However, what I considder very strongly to be at best an unacceptable level of laziness was that you did not notify anybody about this:

  • You did not leave a message on the talk page of the uploader
  • You did not leave a message at talk:2007 Canadian Grand Prix to let editors there know the image used in the article no longer had a fair use rationale
  • You did not leave a message at the ongoing non-free content review (which is the most likely reason you spotted this image, uploaded in 2007, today)

At the very least I would expect at least one of these to have been done as a common courtesy, but ideally it should be required for all such images. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accusing me of laziness is not the way to start a collaborative discussion. Please remain civil. I am not required to notify the uploader of removing a rationale. I don't even know if the uploader created the rationale. As I look now, the original uploader (User:Midgrid). DIDN'T create the group rationale problem. The editor who did, User:Diniz, isn't even active anymore. It doesn't matter. As to leaving a message at talk:2007 Canadian Grand Prix, I am not required to do so. If you would like to make this a requirement to either WP:NFCC policy or WP:NFC guideline, please feel free to start a discussion at WT:NFC to that effect. To your third point, I did leave a message at WP:NFCR; you edit conflicted me as I was posting my message. Regardless, I am not required to post in that thread regarding the removal of group rationales anyway. In summary, I am not required to do any of the things you think I should have done, nor do I have any intention of doing so in the future unless policy and/or guideline changes to require this. I have done dozens of group rationale removals after raising the issue at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: "but ideally it should be required for all such images": Perhaps, but it is not (see WP:NFCC#Enforcement). I agree with Hammersoft you should make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content if you think this should be a requirement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of anyone reading this page who hasn't already seen it, I did start that discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 41#Notification of removing rationales. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking this in the way it was intended to be. I hoped it wouldn't come across as too negative of you and Dirk Beetstra, but sometimes a written text can convey a whole different meaning to the reader than the one the writer intended, and stating why someone is not the best choice for something is a tricky subject. Fram (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed! There are a very few people on this project for whom I am no longer capable of assuming good faith, after so many negative interactions with them. In the vast, vast majority of cases I strive very hard to take each comment on its own terms. I've disagreed with a number of your comments and actions, but you are not among the few previously mentioned. I think your comment was quite correct, and very astute. Text based communications does have serious limitations. I've made mistakes in this area, striving to highlight a point and subsequently causing an avalanche. You did a much better job of it than I did. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 9 vios

I haven't done any NFCC 9 enforcement yet, but I note [7] is currently at 179 violations. My thought was going through the list and replace the files with {{GLNF}} and perhaps drop the relevant editor a talk page note. Also I note we have Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 5, which seems to do enforcement based on Δs report. Given the relatively short length of the report, this list must either grow very fast once it has been truncated or DASHBot is really slow. Weird. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dashbot, doing task 5, doesn't do much per day. But, when Dashbot first started out doing it, the list was well in excess of 10000. There are a few editors doing this sort of enforcement too. So, the list tend to hover around 200. I replace userbox uses of non-free images with File:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, since there's no hope for the image being used in the way the user uses it. I handle userspace development article violations by commenting out the image. I leave the following edit summary "Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9". Seems to work most of the time. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Hope to provide a helping hand on this shortly. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hello Hammersoft - I was going to suggest via the talk page of Todd Manning that they should cut the number of non free images down. Though I'm undecided by how many are needed. How many would you say is suitable for an article like this?RaintheOne BAM 22:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thankyou for getting back to me, I'll go and look at them all individually.RaintheOne BAM 00:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 8 proposal

I made another proposal regarding the wording of NFCC Policy 8 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 42#NFCC 8 clarification (again). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wish I had more time to consider it in depth, but I don't with the holiday. Masem appears to be handling it. I haven't read most of what he's posted, but I trust his opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy WHAT? It sure ain't happy for me!

Happy Thanksgiving Tony the Marine (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (from blocked user)

You demonstrate my point exactly. Show me what a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item" for the Utah university image looks like. Even if you don't think you have to take the time to do it, on a lark, show me what in your estimation needs to be done to set it right. Or do you think there is no such possible rationale? (and yes, as deleter, you don't have to tell me squat OR show me anything-- you get to delete first, and if we're lucky, you'll answer questions later. But, for the sake of conversation, what magic words are missing that caused you to delete it-- I sincerely don't know. --Randomcommenter (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to want to look over the last USU logo I tried added a rationale for. I feel like you should be doing this work yourself morally, but at minimum you're gonna see if I did it right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcommenter (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You will not force me to do anything, nor will I force you to do anything. You've been twice pointed to WP:FURG. I recommend reading it. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a little late the user has been indefed as a SPA/disruptive editor. (and I would say probable sock to boot.) ΔT The only constant 03:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. It was pretty obvious from the get go. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for reviewing the images on USU-Brigham City, USU-Uintah Basin and USU-Tooele. I believe I have added the appropriate fair use information to the image pages. Please let me know if I need to change/add anything. Jhunt47 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BART ticket

Thanks for removing the BART ticket image from the SFBA portal. I had not noticed it was a fair use image, as i have been focusing on adding WC images to articles and categorizing book covers, but forgot that we do have fair use images that are not book jackets, album covers, etc. Please continue to be an enforcer of fair use. Along with copyvio, and BLP, one of the important commandments about content, that doesnt need us to be polite and squeamish. Question: i have surmised that photographs of murals that are not in the public domain are themselves not PD. is that true? id love to add photos of murals, but i dont think i can. Is it really true that we cant even add photos of buildings that are not old enough? That seems to be the policy at one essay on fair/free use. Also, is there a tool for catching improper use of fair use images? i could try doing it too if it doesnt involve learning a computer language.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issue of whether a 2D or 3D work of art, or if architecture is covered by copyright is handled on a country by country basis. Every country has its own ideas on this. For example, in the U.S., 2D and 3D works of art (statues, murals) set in public places can be covered by copyright. Works of architecture can not be. In France, all of those can be covered by copyright. The best reference tool for this is Commons:Freedom of panorama. The report through which I found your portal page violation is located here. All of the (currently) 208 listed pages/images are WP:NFCC #9 violations, which is an easily discernable line; is the image non-free, and is it being used outside of an article. That said, if someone is putting together a draft article in their userspace, and it's been edited in the last 1-2 weeks, I tend to leave it alone. We can ALWAYS use more help in this arena. There's plenty of work to be done, and too few hands to do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AC Milan logo in Kevin-Prince Boateng

Hello! You may remember me from a recent conversation on fair use in Russia-2 national football team. May I ask you as a fair use expert, is it allowed to use football club logos in articles about footballers like there: Kevin-Prince_Boateng#Honours? I thought it is not allowed, but I'm not sure, so I decided it would be better to ask somebody knoledgeable. Barocci (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, but File:AC Milan.svg is licensed under {{PD-textlogo}}. Public domain images are free content. Per the icon Manual of Style, icons or logos should generally be avoided if they do not convey any additional information. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Toshio Yamaguchi

Proposed remedies

In order to make enforcement easier, we could define an upper number of edits to article space for a specific period of time (say eg. 100 edits from 12.12.2011 - 18.12.2011). A bot could be created to count Δs edits during that period of time and report that number at a page, such as WP:RESTRICT#Additional notes regarding Δ or a special subpage, such as WP:RESTRICT/Number of edits by Δ. If Δ goes over the limit, the bot could drop an automatic message somewhere (for example WP:ANI). That would minimize the amount of necessary administrative attention. (The bot could also be made an adminbot and automatically block him for a predefined period of time). Problem finally solved.

Just kiddin'. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012

Hello again! I was wondering if you might take a look at Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012#Addressing issues in the article regarding the appropriateness of File:Gingrich on National Review.png within the article. Thanks again! Cheers! Location (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have a look. By the way, you can put a "[[:" instead of "[[" before "File:" to generate a link to an image, as opposed to wrapping it in nowikis. Hope that helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kim Jong Un.jpg

I believe the image is fair use. I modified the summary considerably. I think {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} can be removed. If you still see a problem with the image please nominate it for deletion rather than through the current mean which is not designed for cases like this. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not arguing that it's fair use. I'm arguing that it's replaceable fair use. The tag should not be removed by you, as it clearly says "Please do not remove this tag". It is up to an administrator to remove it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings


<font=3> Wishing you a
"Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo"
(Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year)
Tony the Marine (talk)
External audio
audio icon Jose Feliciano's "Feliz Navidad "
  • Thank you :) And to you as well! Here's hoping beyond hope that you have a white Christmas in AZ :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question re DYK image

Hi, thanks for catching that issue re the non-free image (I forgot about that one) with regard to [[8]]. Please see a tweak I've done to the hook and image, plus a question to you about whether you would regard this as legit, all things considered. Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IUPAC spelling

Hello, I noticed that you removed the image from Template:IUPAC spelling. It was my honest mistake to use that image in the first place, since I forgot that it was copyrighted. Since that image is unavailable, would File:Globe spelling colour.svg be acceptable since it is a WikiCommons image? If I do use it, I'll have to make another image that uses the alternative spelling "color". If I do make an alternative image and upload it to the Commons, would I have to do anything special to properly attribute it to the original author?

I apologize for asking for what may seem routine for people who regularly handle the legal side of Wikipedia, but I want to make sure that I do everything properly, since I am a bit new to image licences. Thank you for your help. :) —C. Raleigh (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Commons are quiet acceptable to use in template boxes, so you can do that. You may want to start your new image from File:Gnome-globe.svg (another Commons image) and add what additions you want. When you re-upload to Commons, make sure to indicate it is a derivative work of this image, through using the Commons:Template:Derived from template. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks! —C. Raleigh (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File source problem with File:Unofficialpeoria.svg

If you'd bothered checking the file history, you'd have seen that I'm not the original uploader of the image. It's not my fault that Wikipedia screwed up its database and lost the previous version(s) of the file. It's also not my fault that the article has been vandalized, removing the original uploader's statement of how he created the original SVG image in Inkscape. Rather than running around Wikipedia deleting material and adding nasty template notices to articles and files, I suggest you get busy and do some real work and stop pestering people who are actually doing the work here. — QuicksilverT @ 22:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the Christmas season. Perhaps you could find it in your heart to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and bring the light of Christmas into your heart to avoid the serious, egregious violations of Wikipedia:Civility you have demonstrated above. Of course, I'm sure you know this already and the above was just a mere slip of the tongue, a momentary lapse, a misdirected comment. I certainly forgive you. Happy New Year! --Hammersoft (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. No personal attack intended. — QuicksilverT @ 21:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images on Malaysian ringgit

Hi. You added a non-free tag on said article. Can you explain why because the talk page didn't contain any even though it said it might. Thanks. — Blue。 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 22 non-free images on that page, which tends to be too many. ΔT The only constant 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too many is right. Thanks for the heads up. — Blue。 16:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian_rupee

Sumanch (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I left a message in the talk page. Sumanch (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Military Academy Band, West Point, New York (album)

Hammersoft,

Please explain why an audio file(s) is not needed for an article that has to do with a sound recording/CD? Would that not much better demonstrate the performers, the music, and the CD itself? I am not sure I am following the logic here or any problems with using audio samples to better illustrate a sound recording.

Jcooper1 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That argument would permit the inclusion of sound samples from every track of every CD on Wikipedia. There's more than 100,000 CD/album articles on this project as is. If this were permitted, it would result in more than a million non-free sound samples being uploaded. We would never, ever, allow that. If a particular performance of a particular song has achieved fame, a separate article about that song with a sample of it might be appropriate. In an album article, including such clips for each track violates WP:NFCC #3a and #8. There's just no significance to the samples that warrants such inclusion that we must allow more non-free content. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright template at the top of the Danish krone article

I see that you have added the "Nonfree" template to the top of the Danish krone article, with (as you see it) good reason I'm sure. But you've left no reason on the talk page? What is the "excessive or improper use of copyrighted material" on the article? Is it the use of the Danish krone images? - which are fair use.

I just want to know the template has been added and what this means? Peter (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are needed in the article; the user would be left with a poorer understanding with them. These images just-so-happen to be non-free, so I'm using them under fair use. Sorry about that, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be there. Peter (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the discussion I referenced. Your concerns have already been addressed there. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Womble

Sorted! --GhostInTheMachine (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this non-free logo[9] is somehow immune from the sacrosanct NFCC #1 law and is currently used in SIXTEEN Florida Gators team articles, instead of the free alternative[10]. If a reasonable explanation for this apparent double-standard is not provided, then I will have to assume that NFCC #1 does not represent true consensus, and University of South Carolina team articles will be reverted to use of the official non-free logo which is most appropriate for those subjects, rather than a wordmark which is not used on any team uniforms, facilities, etc.. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's over 400,000 items of non-free media and at least that many uses of them across all of WP; it is impossible to police them all consistently. Just because you found one example where something appears to be amiss doesn't mean NFCC doesn't have consensus; in fact, that's a policy that's mandated by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Masem. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument for making more of the same errors. WP:NFCC #1 is policy. If you want to use the non-free logo, then get the policy changed to permit non-free content when free alternatives exists. If you're not up to doing that, then you should consider approaching the USC Athletics department to get them to drop the use of the official wordmark logo. As is, at [11] they note "Spirit marks 8-14 are available with the Block C, with the Gamecock, and as type only on white, black, and garnet backgrounds" (emphasis mine). Ie, the wordmark logo is an official primary logo. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, so that's your convenient excuse for doing nothing, when it would take about 10 seconds to enforce your precious rule in this instance, now that you've been informed that it is being violated. Thanks for confirming my beliefs that you have no interest in actually policing this policy in a reasonable manner. And no, the "spirit mark" at USC is NOT an official primary logo, you are dead wrong about that, no matter how you choose to interpret one line of text on a pdf file. Those wordmarks are used as letterhead and found nowhere on team uniforms or facilities at the school. How you twist that into "primary logo" is beyond me, but it takes some serious self-delusion and general obtuseness. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read and respect WP:CIVIL. If you can't, then stay off my talk page. As to the mark, USC calls it a primary spirit mark. I'm sorry you disagree with their stance. Nevertheless, I take the word of an official source, which an editor on Wikipedia does not qualify as for the purposes of the University of South Carolina. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, without being disrespectful, I don't need your permission to edit your Talk page. Nobody owns your talk page, including you. If I want to respond here, that's called "Wikipedia". If you find this offensive, rude, what have you, it might interest you to read the note below the "Save page" button when you are editing a page. Good day, GarnetAndBlack (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's been previously upheld that a user can ban someone from editing their talk page. One user in particular is already banned from my talk page. They complained about the ban, and like you said they didn't need my permission to edit on this page. The ban was upheld, and the editor hasn't posted to this talk page since. So, my stance remains; remain civil and you may edit this talk page. If you can't, then stay off my talk page.
  • I also note that you have, once again, restored the logo to the article ignoring prior consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "consensus" isn't enforced when clear violation of policy has been pointed out to those who have apparently made it their life's work to police that policy, then I don't recognize that consensus truly exists. Clearly, exceptions exist on Wikipedia for no good reason (other than laziness? stubborness?), so there is no reason why one more can't exist in this case. I mean, seriously? One non-free logo in use across 16 articles when a free logo is available? That doesn't bother you at all now that it's been brought to your attention? I'd love to hear your rationale for ignoring this violation of policy. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus applied specifically to the article we are discussing, not to the Florida Gators logo situation. The difference is there is an official publication from USC noting the wordmark is an official logo. I haven't seen the same for Florida. Maybe it exists, I don't know, but I haven't seen it. If I tried to take the consensus that applies to this article and apply it to Florida, there would rightfully be complaints; it's a different situation. Lastly, I'm going to ask you again to remain civil. Referring to me as a person who has "apparently made it (my) life's work to police that policy" is not civil. Being uncivil towards me has absolutely no positive effect on the strength of your argument. The effect is does have on me is to make me inclined to ban you from my talk page. Please stop. I'm happy to discuss things in a civil manner with you. I will not do so if you continue to be uncivil. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Gators" text logo is plastered on the side of the team's football helmets[12], doesn't get much more official than that. There are also instances of the letter "F" being used as logo for various Florida teams. Having said that, I just noticed that at the page for Florida's non-free logo, there is a statement[13] on the Talk page mentioning a "compromise" restricting use of the logo to team pages only. I have adapted this statement for use at the Talk page for USC's non-free logo[14], and suggest that the same compromise be extended for USC's team articles. I will personally see to it that the non-free logo not be used at any USC articles beyond these, such as season articles, bowl game articles, rivalry articles, and articles about coaches and players. Can this compromise be extended on this basis? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better than nothing. In my opinion, it's not enough when free alternatives exist, and prior consensus supported that, but it is better than nothing. I appreciate the collegiality you are now approaching me with. Bear with me here a minute; WP:NFCC #1 implores us to use free or freer alternatives when they exist. Assuming we take a component of the uniform as gospel with regards to what counts as official primary marks of a given team, there should be (hang with me...) no objection to using just the "CAROLINA" wordmark as it appears on the front of all USC football jerseys. See this image for an example. Similarly, with USC Baseball; [15]. On baseball article, we don't use the Gamecock C, instead preferring the interlocking S and C, which appears on their uniforms. Similarly, men's basketball [16]. And again, on the jersey the Gamecock C isn't used. Women's Cross country [17]. Women's soccer [18]. Now, I very strongly understand there is an emotional component to the Gamecock C logo. There's no question it is a primary mark. There's no question it's used in plenty of advertising, promotional products, etc. But it's not used on a lot of USC uniforms. Now, what purpose, a logo? If we're not using it decoratively, we're using it to identify a team, yes? The Gamecock C logo doesn't do any better of a job at that than the "CAROLINA" wordmark emblazoned on the front of all football jerseys. One could even argue the wordmark does a better job of it as the Gamecock C lacks the word "CAROLINA" in it. So why not use a wordmark? Also, in the football case, we have a uniform picture at the bottom of the box which has the Gamecock C shown on the helmets. If there were any remaining confusion about what article we've arrived at, that would erase it. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you bring up the "CAROLINA" on the front of this year's football jersey, as this was the first example of a new "athletic font" being used on all uniforms across all sports at the university. I suppose that if a good quality image of this can be found, it would serve as a more representative free image for USC's athletic programs than the wordmarks currently being used. I'd also mention that the pdf file you linked to that contain those wordmarks dates to 2010, and doesn't take into account this new "athletic font" which was introduced in late 2011. I'll look around and try to find an image of the new "CAROLINA" that can be added to Commons. I'd still like to keep the Block C on the football team article, as that is the logo on the team's helmets, and the one most commonly used as an identifier for the program by the media and so forth. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be the most commonly used, but would anyone be confused on seeing "CAROLINA" in that font/color set as to what team the article is discussing? That's back to what point, the logo? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User 129.252.69.40?

Is this the same IP User:129.252.69.40 that you have been having problems with? [19] May need your support here [20]. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll be curious to see how this plays out. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have had a history with that IP / user. Can you not present any references or input? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could, but it's been a very long time, and my suspicions at the time were not confirmed. I'd rather not stir the bucket. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tandem approach

You may know that I offered to serve as a mentor for Betacommand. If such a provision is sanctioned would you be available to assist jointly in such a capacity? My76Strat (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand is a former administrator. He knows Wikipedia policy quite well. The way he went about enforcing policy, along with difficulty in communicating with other editors, resulted in the current sanctions and problems with the community. I am not sure what a mentorship would be able to help with. The problem is that, due to the mistakes of the past, several members of the community are out to get him banned. If Beta were to do a cleanstart, it is quite likely the drama he is currently subjected to would cease. His activities this past year have been of a non-controversial nature. The only reason they are controversial is because of the username attached to the edits. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and proposed clean start as well. The committee seems resoundingly against such a remedy. Thankfully they appear interested in seeking a resolution that will allow Betacommand to continue editing under some form of supervised sanction. My76Strat (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sort of an unofficial role in watching Δ's talk page and responding to queries on his behalf. He has no problem with this. I think that's about as far as I can go. Too many people would be opposed to me mentoring him, as they see me as being 1000000% in support of him (I'm not, but it's the public perception that carries the day around here, not whether you're right or wrong). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you are absolutely correct of the things said, and the many others directly implied. I failed cognition of the prophetic foreknowledge that assures us all; the "Straw Man" cometh! — nor the insight to weigh the effect and direction of "public perception", which of course is dictated by the most proficient orator amassed.
That a mentor should not be supportive of the mentee is the logical fallacy the astute would be keen to anticipate. Precisely why I do not claim association with the class who are astute, for surely I could only discredit their integrity.
My prowess lies congruent in ability to consider the hindsight; without the desire or need, to dissociate truth, or relegate it to insignificance. The only comforting counsel; by competent dispensation is: in as much as Wikipedia is a microcosm, it can best describe by its metaphoric contrast, the dichotomy, the chasm, the simple incompatibility betwixt the truth and a lie.
This is a self apparent contrast to some, but to others, a microscope can not enlarge to sufficient clarity. The aforementioned should recognize this as a shibboleth, and rejoice, that simply they understand. The later, being not vile for refusing to see, but instead for being the latter, the manifestation of a separating, almost complete.
To these regards, I address this response primarily to you Hammersoft, a soul I have witnessed, by comment and deed, to also be of the ability described. And to the secondary audience, all eyes which happen to see, veiled; so that I, and we, together, can observe, as those in torment, who slander for the sake of its power, expose themselves as having been separated; by their comment and deed.
It is my station, to do these things, both here, and there. I am gratified being the least of said station, a privilege without burden. I will be proud to break bread with you, upon the trains departure. And will insist that the larger portion belongs to you; authenticated by your presence at that time.
I will not speak to this again, completing this obligation. The few things which remain of my obligation will manifest in their proper time. That there is little left, required to do, should be parsed by every capable eye; while eyes remain a factor of capability. I am sincere, and I am - My76Strat (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles City Council District 1

There was an image on this page. It's gone now. Why? It had a rationale. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The edit summary sums it up rather well; there was no rationale for this use per WP:NFCC #10c, which requires a separate, specific non-free rationale for each use. Indeed there is a rationale on the image description page, but not for this particular use on this particular article. One really can't be created either; the image wasn't referenced in the article, and though it has to do with the subject, there's no strong case for it. This is most especially true since it's replaceable with free content alternatives. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your response. I was not expecting one insasmuch as many of my graphics have just been deleted without any further explanation; very troubling and one reason why editors get frustrated with WP and give up contributing. Anyway, I believe you are wrong on many counts, the most cogent of which is that the graphic exactly maps the area in question as seen by the voters at the time of the election. When you say there is no "strong case," well, that is just one person's opinion, isn't it? What makes one person's opinion (yours) more valid than another's (mine)? Sincerely, your friend. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason a free version can not be created? That's the criteria under which it fails WP:NFCC #1. It fails WP:NFCC #8 because this non-free image does not connect to the article in any way as sourced by secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article:David Charles (physician)

Hello, could you please check if this article is written correctly/meets all of Wikipedia's rules? Also, could you please capitalize the parenthetical "physician" so the full article name becomes "David Charles (Physician)" because I can not seem to edit it myself. Thank you in advance! Azeresen (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "physician" should not be capitalized in this context of the article title. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know?

How do I know if the images are, free or what ever the reason you keep deleting my images are for? Ruler of Coasters  Talk  14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look at the licensing tag. If it contains a red "C", it's copyrighted, non-free, and can't be used on a userpage. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, thanks! Ruler of Coasters  Talk  15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage barnstar

The Excellent User Page Award
Very nice userpage. Its humorous, creative, and well executed. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  13:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks :) Of course, I should say "CRAP! Now I have ten barnstars! :(" :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol Ruler of Coasters  Talk  15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your opinion

AQ made an interesting comment on Δ's talk page: essentially "why wait a year to begin discussing restrictions regarding Δ". I am curious how appropriate you feel it would be to begin refining those restrictions now under some form of an RFC? My76Strat (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=477788660"