User talk:Hammersoft

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hammersoft (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 23 January 2013 (→‎Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3

You commented at the first FAC, so as a courtesy, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding copyright

Thanks for the heads up, Hammersoft. It's too bad we can't just use a photo of Kim Jong-un and place it on the page with the criteria of 'fair use rationale'. North Korea is such an isolated country and the chances of any civilians getting a picture of him and making it available for anyone to copy/reuse are pretty slim to none. Appreciate your message. Stubbleboy 23:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, we had a debate about that on the talk page of the article not too long ago. There's LOTS of images out there, which kinda proves the point that images can be taken of him. It's just no one's released one under a free license yet. It'll happen though. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom talk page

Hi there,

Just letting you know that I've archived (with a collapsable box) the discussion titled "Desysop RF but not Elen? Why the hypocrisy from ArbCom?" In my opinion it wasn't going anywhere and achieving anything. It was clear that the tone and general nature of the discussion was spiralling downwards and was no longer a useful discourse to continue. If you are interested in continuing the discussion, maybe give it 24-48 hours and start afresh with a new topic and hopefully that can stay focused a bit better from all parties.

Let me know if you have any concerns or questions.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I do have grave concerns that an inactive ArbCom clerk has inserted themselves into a debate about ArbCom behavior and closed the discussion. The thread I started is an honest query of ArbCom. It deserves to be answered by a member of ArbCom other than Elen. Closing the discussion and hatting it does not remove the core issue. If you want to hat the followup responses to my initial query to ArbCom, fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you

Howdy. I've mentioned and quoted you here. I'm not sure if that page has a policy like WP:ANI does about notifying people being discussed, but I figured I'd play it safe. :) Rockfang (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes of the Australian dollar

You've used edit summaries in place of discussion, and tagged/removed images several times without using the talk page of the article. Please do not do that once you've been reverted by another editor, it's slow-motion edit warring and it's really not cool. Use the talk page, man. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long delayed response; you've completely mischaracterized my edits. I made a single edit removing the images [1]. Unless you're suggesting I don't edit at all, I fail to see what I did wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank You for fighting vandalism! Tow Trucker talk 21:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I've provided a link for the reference. http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_ar-rahman-s-commonwealth-games-song-flops-but-he-won-t-redo-it_1436560 Regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.138.181.117 (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct at Talk:Kim Jong-un

After reading up on what is required of editors at Wikipedia in content discussions, in my opinion these behaviours that you exhibited at Talk:Kim Jong-un fall below the minimum standards expected. Pursuant to the advice in WP:DR, please can you indicate whether you accept, reject, or otherwise want to engage with me about these concerns. Krolar62 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have said everything I am going to say to you. Thank you, and goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Hammersoft)

Hello, Hammersoft. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hammersoft, where you may want to participate. Krolar62 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krolar62 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I-85 Rivalry

If logos can't be one the article, then why are they on the other rivalry pages. Plus why can't you fix the problem or find someone to do it?

User talk:50.90.193.16

  • There all over the other rivalry articles because you put them there. I've shown you the instructions on how to fix the problem. Is there some reason you can't? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase. How can the other articles keep their logos but not the i-85? Is there something different about this article? I din't understand the whole process.Can you explain to me? Thank you.--50.90.193.16 (talk) 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • WP:FURG can explain it far better than I can. Please follow it. I didn't say the other articles could keep them. In fact, spot checking all the articles you added logos to, all of them are violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section through edit conflict

You removed someone else's post (probably due to an edit conflict) here. Fram (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the heads up. That's bizarre. I had the edit window open for a long time though. I think the software gets confused sometimes when a page is under rapid editing. I re-added the section and signed for the IP. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haloid

I saw your redirect request for Haloid. You'll need an admin for that, and the best way is to add a request on that article's talk page, using {{editprotected}} and the rationale given at AfC. Something is strange, though: The talk page was already created today and deleted again per author request. Huon (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deletion was carried out by an admin-bot, I decided to ignore it and ask for creation of the redirect myself. Maybe I even screwed up myself while trying to create the talk page the first time. Whatever; now it should work. Huon (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin-bot running around enforcing AfDs...hmm. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bot just deletes pages blanked by their only authors, or possibly pages tagged with {{db-user}}. Maybe I accidentally created a blank page - I don't think so, but who knows. Huon (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, ok. Now I'm curious to see if that works :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Alan Liefting was known as a shadowy character throughout Wikipedia and it was only recently discovered that he was expunging all images of himself.

Thanks for your staunch support on the image placeholder issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Love the self portrait over there to the right :) Hysterical :) More seriously; please understand that supporting you in this case is a happenstance; it's not intentional. It's not that I don't or do support your removals of the images. What I find repulsive is the attack that has been launched against you for it, and Sandstein's behavior in pursuing this; twice now threatening you with a block. You've been cooperative and communicative on this issue. For Sandstein to skip your talk page, not even make an attempt at it, and launch a WP:AN/I thread where in the very first post he threatens to block you unless you meet his demands, is absolutely objectionable. Sandstein should be admonished for such behavior. It is also objectionable to me that some editors keep repeating over and over and over again that there is no consensus to do this when it has been blatantly shown there is consensus. Ah well. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for deleting the last of these "replace this image" templates, and thank you, H, for your principled defense of Alan and prior consensus at ANI. I thought the discussion and the block threats were petty, pointy and misguided, especially in light of the prior consensus to delete and the history of deleting most of the images over the last several years. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not my handiwork, and the article still requires all sorts of clean-up. I thought keeping the placeholders on the honorary degree list might be semi-appropriate for a number of minor reasons, and had not decided what to do or not to do with them in that instance. However, I gladly sacrifice those 177 uses in order to make it a clean sweep! Good for the goose, good for the gander. Keep on deleting, manually, if so required. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis tournament records tables

Greetings, Hammersoft. This is a follow-up to our recent discussion regarding the use of flag icons in international sports articles. Please take a look at the "Lisa Raymond" article. While I know you will be completely appalled by the general overuse of flag icons in the tournament records tables, please note, in particular, the use of flag icons to denote the geographical location of tournaments. I believe this is typical of tennis records tables. If we are looking for areas of agreement, I think most editors who work on international sports articles would agree that there is no policy, guideline, consensus or precedent that justifies the use of flag icons to denote sporting event locations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My focus was on the infoboxes. The guideline on the issue is blatantly clear. The golf bios stand in opposition to that. Further, a wikiproject consensus can not override a wikipieda wide consensus. It would appear the tennis people are doing the same thing. Frankly, my feeling is that as the number of editors dwindle, so does support for wikipieda wide guidelines. The wikiprojects covering particular areas, if one exists, carry more weight and can safely ignore any wikipieda wide policies or guidelines. So, in the end, I say so what. Who cares. It doesn't matter. Plenty of guidelines and policies have fallen down the same hole. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi

something about the code in the barnstar you left on Alan's page isn't correct, I can't find what it is, thought you'd like to know. Penyulap ☏ 00:14, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I saw it too. I couldn't figure it out either. It looks clean, but isn't. I figure Alan can delete if it bothers him too much. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me...

"I am not a bot!"

...are you a bot? You edit more than 50 articles per minute. How many fingers do you have? Vcohen (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your question does not compute. ;) No, I'm not a bot. I use tabbed browsing and keyboard shortcuts. For example, alt-shift-s saves an edit. If you hold your mouse over the "Save page" button in an edit window, it should show you the shortcut. I think I exceeded 50 saves (not edits...the editing takes a lot longer as it really is all done by hand) in a minute just once. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :^) Vcohen (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're not a bot. But I still have to ask why you're removing all the "No Image" plaques from so many of the railroad-related articles. ----DanTD (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for asking :) It's not just railroads. The work just finally got around to railroads. See, back in 2008 there was a community wide decision (WP:IPH) that resulted in place holders being deprecated (see Wikipedia:Image placeholders). Since that time, more than 50,000 of the uses of various image place holders have been removed. There are now less than 250 project wide. This is just the last bits being cleaned up. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Jackson (Black Panther)

Hello again! The image in George Jackson (Black Panther) is from the cover of a book about him. As there are plenty of other photos in existence of George Jackson not on a book cover, is this a legitimate fair-use image for that article? Thanks! Location (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since he is dead, a non-free image of his is acceptable if....IF....no free alternative exists. See if you can find a free license image of him somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Location (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who runs this site again?

Uh, I remember . -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • ArbCom runs this site. If you try to get help for your case, they add sanctions against you for asking for help. If you provide evidence over the limit, even if dozens of people post evidence you need to respond to, they chop your evidence. When you are convicted, you can't appeal except to them. If you question their actions or that of their clerks, they threaten you. If one of their own engages in egregious personal attacks, they won't even mention it much less include it in a case. If you question their use of checkuser, they'll stonewall. Their decisions are final, have long lasting impact, can not effectively be appealed, have no oversight, can ignore community imposed ArbCom policy and can ignore the site's terms of use if they so desire. If it needs to be clarified, I am not making any of this up. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't made up and I think there are other people who feel that way too. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, none of the people on ArbCom, with the exception of one, seem to have any understanding of this. The demonstrated lack of professionalism is to say the least appalling given the widespread effect they have on the project. What should be a body that actively drives the project in positive directions is instead an active deterrent to success of the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to necessarily defend ArbCom, they actively avoid being the ones to set policy or guidelines for WP; they only look at behavior problems, though yes, arguably their decisions there can in turn drive certain types of behavior and practice on WP. But this is a far cry from calling them "running the site". Again, not saying that they are perfect on the behavior side given several recent cases. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was told to me by a member of ArbCom when they violated the jurisdiction policy, it's just a matter of semantics, is it not? They are the ultimate authority on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be interested to know whom, where, and in what context that was said, if it was made in public (if it was in email correspondence I don't wish to pry). At least at one point (maybe not with the current set of arbs, perhaps during the characters and episodes 2 case against TTN) they were adamant that they weren't there to decide content policy, but to funnel editors to work harmoniously (even if under a mediator or three) towards a content solution. Even most recently, they didn't say how to handle the images of Muhummad but instead set the framework for consensus-based discussion for determining how to handle the images. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hammersoft, I just wanted to tell you that I read through the ArbCom case (after coming in contact with your on Kim Jong Un), and I really appreciate your willingness to stand up to both ArbCom and admins on this site. Not many people express this kind of bravery, particularly under the nose of the people to whom you are standing up. I have little doubt that they will attempt to use this against you in the future, so please accept my thanks now and please don't lose faith. T. trichiura Infect me 14:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Yeah, I do fully expect that ArbCom will come after me with pitchforks in hand. I believe it is a matter of time at this point. The method under which it will be done will be some guise of accusing me of undermining the processes of dispute resolution. Protest their actions enough, and they will trump up a reason to ban you.
  • The simple fact is that ArbCom is an unprofessional body. There is no formal training. There are no qualifications. There is no interview for the position, just a vote. There are no formal prerequisites except a willingness to disclose your actual identity to the Foundation should you be elected. There are no policies which they are forced to abide by enough though they exist, and have violated them on multiple occasions. They can even ignore their own procedures if they see fit to do so. There is no possibility of oversight of their actions. There is no one to appeal to if you are wronged by them. To that end, they've even violated the terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation. The irony is my protests against their actions are not meant to tear them down, but rather to make ArbCom better. Yet, they categorically refuse to improve. I don't expect them to do what is say. Rather, it is so blindingly obvious they are failing someone on their august board should be wise enough to see truth for what it is. I am far from alone in observing their failings. Still, they continue to get worse. There is probably something there worth a study in human behavior.
  • As for faith; I firmly believe that as a body so constructed, ArbCom is incapable of being anything more than slightly competent, and on average mildly incompetent. On occasion, such as the decision to violate the terms of use, grossly incompetent. Due to their lack of professionalism, they are not properly equipped to handle dispute resolution and more often than not make situations worse than better. I also firmly believe this project is doomed, due to lack of professionalism on the part of the Foundation. For example, to my knowledge (I've not poured over the books, but I've poked around a bit) the Foundation lives hand to mouth. What I mean is there is no plan for financial stability into the indefinite future. The contributions by loyal fans of the project have been rising over the last few years. This will not last forever. Yet, the Foundation has taken no steps that I'm aware of to ensure the long term financial viability of the projects it maintains. One such possibility is a trust fund. It doesn't exist. If something happened to cause a significant surge in bad press for the project (consider the recent debate about pornography on the project as one such potential example) and contribution funds dried up, the Foundation could be gone in less than a year. Another possibility is a lawsuit judgment against the Foundation wiping out its material assets. So far as I'm aware, the Foundation has done nothing to protect itself against such threats.
  • To speak such criticisms of the Foundation or ArbCom is blasphemy. Eventually they will come after me because I do not toe the corporate line. I will be pushed out. It's just a matter of time. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venetia Burney

Dont you think it's time to move on from this article? There is no consensus to delete or merge this article. Continued discussion isn't likely to change this.--RadioFan (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know local discussion won't change anything. That's common in such discussions. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Your posts at WP:NFR kill me.
– Lionel (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. They're not intended to be poisonous. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rail-interchange

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

Hello!

Hello, I know that you are the No. 1 of copyright issues! Can you help me with the Copyright status of these pictures? I think that they are too old to be copyrighted but the description says the opposite.

Thanks! --The Theosophist (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note of caution here, and Hammersoft maybe you know much better than I, doesn't the UK have something about "sweat of the brow" in making a workmanlike copy of an otherwise public domain image? As opposed to US or Canada where it doesn't matter how good your scanner is, it's just a copy. Or does that only apply to Commons, so we could freely use it only on en:wiki but need a {{keeplocal}} tag so that only US law applies? Franamax (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent note of caution. The latter case definitely applies. As to the former case, not sure; there was a dispute about something similar with the photos of the artworks from that British museum a while back. Not sure how that turned out. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Training

I was informed about this option. This arbitration training can all be done online. It takes only 24 hours of coursework to complete the training. It costs as little as $700.00 or up to $795.00, if registration is delayed. There is also the cost of two books which outgoing Arbs may be able to sell to incoming Arbs or something to that effect. Or the Foundation can keep copies on hand and mail them around. SilverserenC 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, but this can't be true. Risker said it'd cost at least $10,000 per person. You're suggesting we can do it for 93% cheaper than that? You're saying Risker inflated his figure more than 14 times over? No, I refuse to believe that. It can't be true. ArbCom has to remain ignorant and amateurish because (scaling to all projects) it would cost at least a million dollars to train all current arbitrators, and nobody has the money for that. </tongue in cheek> Even rudimentary training...maybe reading a several chapter document...would be better than what we have now. It doesn't have to be expensive. No matter. ArbCom insists on shooting it down. They don't want training. It's like a person with cancer refusing to stop smoking two packs a day. They might not be a bad visual representation of ArbCom :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably bring up this option then. SilverserenC 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nathan Adrian.jpg

Greetings, Hammersoft. Could you please apply some of your head full of NFCC policy to this newly uploaded image: File:Nathan Adrian.jpg? Looks a little suspect to me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is. It's a copyright violation. I've tagged it as such on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
H, can you check this photo of Missy Franklin File:Missy Franklin.jpg, too? The documentation appears less suspect, but I will defer to your expertise. What I don't see in the file documentation is the source or a statement that it was the uploader's own work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends007

Hey Hammersoft, you might want to follow Commons:Com:VPC#‎How to create a batch deletion discussion. Many uploads by that editor probably need deletion. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the heads up. I think the batch deletion discussion is going fine. Kudos to you for figuring it out :) So much of Wikipedia (and Commons) has become difficult by way of well meaning editors creating "easy" processes (that's a contradiction in terms). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your efforts in trying to save the image File:Lady Gaga's meat dress. I would have helped but I didn't know how to find the discussion page haha. I think you're right in the matter but I guess Wikipedia is more random than I thought. Keep up the good work :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityMorgue (talk • contribs) 11:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove free image links

Hello Hammersoft, I add missing images of these wiki articles List of Presidents of India, List of Vice-Presidents of India, List of Prime Ministers of India. But you remove these image links. These images are free from copyrighted and used in wikipedia articles. for eg. Gulzarilal Nanda, I take image link from these article and add the link in List of Prime Ministers of India. Please explain why you remove these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikian (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images you are adding are not free, as they are copyrighted and used here under terms of fair use and our local policy on the use of such images found at WP:NFCC. As is explained in the comments you are removing them and replacing them with copyrighted images, the use of such images in lists is generally prohibited, per WP:NFLISTS. Take for example File:Dr Zakir Hussain.jpg. If you look at this image's description page, you will note that it very clearly has a large red "C" inside a box in the licensing section. This means it is not a free license image, and we must use it according to [[WP:NFCC], WP:NFC, and WP:NFLISTS. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC enforcement is futile

The End is Nigh

If there is any user apart from you who actually understands the full meaning of this then that's me now. The discussion at here finally convinces me. And where will I finally land if I continue my current path? Hmmmm..... But obviously no one apart from you or me seems to understand that this is FAR more damaging for Wikipedia than ANY mass automation using editor could ever be. If this whole system is not one big perversion of what Wikipedia was supposed to be then I don't know. The only solution I see is to just don't give a damn anymore, choose one silent corner of Wikipedia (like this article) which I am a main contributor to and just don't give a damn about the rest anymore. A change is not possible in this system.... -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, you have seen the blessed light! :) I have to admit, I've grown so cynical that I found the responses to that thread to be quite funny. In essence, we have a systemic issue with the use of non-free imagery in inappropriate places (cows pooping all over the front yard). Solution; re-start the bot that cleans out the violations (find a faster cow pie scooper). Never a worry or concern that maybe...just maybe...the underlying issue isn't being resolved (get the cows out of the front yard)? Of course not. By the way, the number of cow pies has increased 53% in the last four months alone. So, we'll just need a 54% faster cow pie scooper and we'll be ok, right?
  • I agree with you 100% of course. We're up above 450 thousand non-free images on the project now. That's ok though. We're Wikipedia! The Free Encyclopedia! Free as in beer of course. The gratis bit went right out the window. I used to have a userbox on my userpage that said the only way to resolve the non-free image disputes was to either allow no non-free images or allow as many as you can up to the limit of fair use law. Given we are an educational resource, we have pretty wide liberty to use non-free images. So, let's shoot for complete rather than free. The free part is a joke anyway. Even the book creator link here happily lets you use non-free images in the digital cover it makes. So, we end up with crap like this, this and this with NFCC violations on them all for 3 months. Nobody really gives a damn anymore. On the odd occasion when people do give a damn, we end up with RfCs worth 23 pages (in print form) over a single image. Now, that RfC has gone decidedly in favor of not having a non-free image to depict him. But, the RfC's results in application are weak. Why? Because the RfC has no teeth. Once an RfC like this concludes, there should be a flippable bit to prevent the use of a non-free image in the infobox. The way to unflip it would be to get an RfC to overturn the prior consensus. If not such a system, then SOMEthing that does something similar. But, that's not how it works here. Instead, we end up with people adding images left and right and every direction. And someone has to come along and police all this crap (read; walk around the field and pick up the cow poop) OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Of course, if I raise concern regarding systemic issues, my claims are extremely silly.
  • I've long wanted to communicate with the few people left that do NFCC patrolling and ask them to put down their NFCC work and walk away from it. Maybe, just maybe, if we all did the systemic issues would be laid bare and someone would finally DO something about it. Of course that would be unethical. So, I sit here on my pedestal and speak of the end being nigh and now is the time to repent. I'm going to go have my NFCC-free lunch now. Care to join me? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you weren't asking me to comment on that discussion, but I did anyway. Probably not quite the response you'd expect from me :) But, I really am not in jest. The charade needs to end. There are precious few people left who will fight for keeping NFCC to a minimum. I think we can probably get consensus to radically reduce to the scope and application of NFCC policy. We have to keep it to maintain the charade to the Foundation so they can glibly ignore the project's abject failures, but we can emasculate it and largely eliminate the never ending debates. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're listing "troubling responses"

I'm certainly not going to go whining to a noticeboard or anything, but... I'm getting quite tired of being accused of enjoying being a part of a lynch mob. "Lynch mob" actually means something, and it isn't the same order of magnitude as having the gall to think someone shouldn't be an admin on some website. Idiocy like "cabal" and "tossed off the project" and "sharks" are getting tiresome too, but I can deal with that; at least it doesn't imply that I enjoy murdering people. Perhaps you'd considering choosing some other bit of ridiculous hyperbole instead? Perhaps insult my intelligence or my looks or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't believe you were stupid enough to post to my talk page. Maybe it has to do with you looking in the mirror, seeing how ugly you are, and somehow construing that as a need to go on a mission to demonstrate your stupidity on my talk page? :) (that is ALL meant as a joke, please). Not as a joke; I fully admit that I've used hyperbolic rhetoric. However, mine has been abstract. EP's detractors have been specific. Where mine hasn't been abstract, it's been directly quoting his detractors. I did not quote you. I read what you said there, but you were not directly insulting towards him. Others have been. They should have been taken to task, but haven't been. To be clear; I don't view seeking alternative means of ending a dispute as being a lynch mob. I think (and we can safely disagree) that not going to an RfC first was a mistake. What has horrified me has been the attitude expressed by so many at the RFAR, of jumping on the bandwagon and absolutely verbally beating the snot out of EP for a minor (in the grand scheme of things) set of problems. That's the lynch mob mentality to which I refer. In so far as a lynch mob can exist on Wikipedia in such a virtual forum, that is exactly what it is and is an entirely appropriate metaphor. EP's character and the respect for same are being thoroughly dragged through the mud. That's wrong, but nobody is lifting a finger to do anything about it. Instead, as I noted, ArbCom is rushing to join them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, as long as you understand that hyperbole like that makes it much less likely that people are going to take what you say seriously, and that some people are offended by it, I guess we're done here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deem my methods effective for the purposes I use them. I don't necessarily take credit for, but note that before I commented it was 4-0 with two on the fence to accept, and now, after I've contributed, it's on indefinite hold with people suggesting that maybe there's a better way to handle this. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever start writing it again, I'll be sure to rename one of Saurogoth's smelly little minions "Hammersoft". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • :) So long as I get a first edition, personally signed :) Thanks for the levity. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere

Perhaps you and Zebeddee could interact on somewhere other than EP's talk page? Having an extended conversation with a third party on an editor's talk page whilst they are away always struck me as rude. Kind of like hosting a party in a neighbor's house while they are away. Nobody Ent 20:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it was just he and I talking about stuff related to he and I, I'd agree with you. Not so in this case. I think it appropriate in this case. If it strays into the former territory, I will reconsider. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I read something you (Hammersoft) posted on EP's talk page, agreed with it, felt moved to comment, but came here to comment instead of there. The comment was this one: "Instead, ArbCom's rushing...absolutely rushing...to join the lynch mob". I think what would have helped here is if arbitrators had followed what is generally a good rule of thumb: to not comment in any substantive way, and ask others to hold back as well, until all the main parties have made statements. In this case that would have meant waiting until EP had said what he had to say. Acceptance in a case like this should only come after hearing what the named party has to say. I'd also note that arbitrators don't actually have much that is visible to do at the moment (no outstanding cases). I hesitate to say that this can influence things, but I think sometimes it has and does. The most sensible comment so far has been the one about a lesser committee being set up to examine more minor admin infractions and see whether a full case is needed or not. If done right, that could work, but done wrong would be horrendous. Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC) PS. The LotR link above is brilliant![reply]

Actually, looking further, I see you've already said this to Brad here. I agree with what you said there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... which he didn't really respond to :( But maybe ArbCom will take it under advisement and consider modifying their rules and procedures. This seems like a sensible reform to me, and one easy to implement. Many arbitrators (but not all, unfortunately) already tend to say things but not vote to accept/reject until the main parties have chimed in. This doesn't seem a stretch. I'm hopeful. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had responded substantively there, but maybe I was too subtle. My practice in voting on any request for arbitration is to wait until we have statements from all the main parties, or it becomes clear that we won't be getting statements from sone, unless the need for arbitration is palpably obvious. I do think it can be helpful, however, to provide preliminary comments early on; if nothing else these provide guidance to the parties and others as to what sort of input would be helpful to the arbitrators.
In the specific case of EncycloPetey, my initial comment was that we should await a statement from EncycloPetey, and after he did make a perfunctory statement and then posted a "goodbye" message (hopefully only a temporary one) on a project page, I was the arbitrator who asked that the case be put on hold even though there were 8 votes to accept it, in the hopes that this situation could still be worked out somehow.
I don't agree with all of your (Hammersoft's) negative comments about the ArbCom, but I also don't think it's a secret that in several cases this year I have not agreed with the majority's position on one issue or another. If you disagree with my votes or comments on a case, please let me know and I'll try to respond substantively to your concern. If you disagree with other arbitrators' votes or comments, I'm still interested to know about it (and I've got all the relevant pages watchlisted), but I am sure you understand that I can't respond on their individual behalfs. I hope this clarifies a bit. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brad, I do appreciate the steps you took in this particular case. My suggestions vis-a-vis refraining from voting until all parties had had a chance to respond was in respect to all of ArbCom, not just you. I think there should be a guideline in place to this effect. I have been spending considerable time thinking about ArbCom and its practices over the last several months. I have found quite a number of failings in the process. It is true that I make quite a few negative comments about ArbCom. But, I am striving to improve the process, not tear it apart. In so doing, I have generally not been taking any single arbitrator to task over particular votes or comments. I have been trying to keep my comments restricted to ArbCom's behavior as a whole. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC and press photos

I'm not sure if you follow the WT:NFC page much now, but I've half-started following it again and asked a question there recently. I dug around and got a fair amount of detail about the history of an image and several copies of that image that are circulating around. I saw what you said above about NFCC enforcement, but would you have anything to add to what I said on the specific point about whether it is OK to use such copies of press photos that turn up on the internet 42 years later? My gut feeling is no - someone could buy the thing, but that still doesn't get past whether it should be on sale in the first place. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, whoever scanned it and is offering it for sale is violating copyright. As to whether we can use it here, I concur with Masem's 23:57, 7 September 2012 comment at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the eBay point, I agree. The other point, I'm not so sure about, but that is some thing to talk about over there (tomorrow if I get time). Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom members calling editors trolls

Thanks. Although, I should thank AGK also, he certainly confirmed all of my negative thoughts about ArbCom members, gained during this witch hunt. Too bad it is only administrators held to a higher standard. Cough. Eau (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've witnessed a number of other insults cast by ArbCom members. It's disappointing. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Dillard image

Thanks for the heads up - when I copied it from Commons, I somehow lost the source and the license infor, but they are there now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-bot

Hello Hammersoft; a while ago you left a message[2] "I've already shown you how it is not a script,". Do you have a link/difflink to the explanation? Appreciations in advance for any pointers, —Sladen (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mark P. Shea

I would like to disagree with your revision of Mark P. Shea's page. I have it on good authority that he is, in fact the most hallowed God of Toasters. I believe your removal of this important information is incredibly insulting of his followers. I must ask you to return it, or the Church of Shea: Toast God will be forced to charge you with blasphemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ockmanas (talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but my religious beliefs prevent me from putting toasters, even gold plated ones, as false gods. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being obstructionist

You know much better than that: [4]

You've been acting like a petulant child that has had his toys taken away ever since Beta was first slammed for misuse of tools for NFC enforcement, which in turn has affected your own ability to enforce NFC in a strong-arm manner. Now, I also understand that right now, you have a huge grudge against Arbcom, in part for that, in part for their overly-strong resolutions that appear to overstep their bounds and/or fail to solve the real problem, not just in terms of NFC or Beta. The resentment you have for them is rather obvious. However, it wasn't ArbCom that pulled the trigger on Beta, it was the community. The community has basically said: don't be an ass about enforcing NFC. They never said "NFC shouldn't be enforced."

When you post "Keeps" for non-free content that are clearly counter to all standing NFC policy and go "well, NFC isn't enforced, so keep it", you are purposely disrupting the project. You know very well that it fails NFC. The claim that "NFC isn't enforced", is of course bullshit - it just can't be enforced with an iron fist like you wish it could (well, you could, but you'd likely be blocked very quickly). There may be close to 500,000 NFC images on WP, and there's probably a good chunk that are not appropriate per NFC, but without education to teach editors how to use NFC properly (again, there's no point until they upload a file where an editor is assured to have seen WP:NFCC) and the general lack of volunteers in the area, it will take a while to clear up, but that is a far cry from "not being enforced".

If you've given up on trying to enforce NFC, fine, that's your choice, but don't make the work difficult for those that are still doing it. You will likely see an RFC/U or an ANI report if you continue to act counter to what you know is proper NFC. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only reason I read past "petulant child" is because I have a great deal of respect for you. As a rule, I do not read posts past the point where they begin using personal insults, as witnessed here. Please cease and desist with the personal attacks. They are completely unnecessary to making your point an in fact detract from your presentation. This will be the last time I read past personal insults from you. I will not suffer semantic arguments offering differences like "I wasn't calling you a petulant child, but saying you are acting as one". It's an insult, pure and simple. It will stop, or you will not be read by me. The civility policy may be a joke on the rest of the project, but it is not a joke with me and I do not have to read it. As to the points you raise...
  1. My current position vis-a-vis NFCC has little, if any, relation to BCD.
  2. I haven't enforced NFCC very much at all in the last half year, much less in a 'strong arm manner'.
  3. It is a misstatement to say I have a grudge against ArbCom (btw, I thought this correction rather humorous!). I bear ArbCom no ill will. I think the entire arbitration process needs to be completely revamped. I frequently find fault with the behavior of ArbCom, but that does not make my stance in toto with regards to them a 'grudge'. Further, my stance vis-a-vis ArbCom has only passing connection to BCD.
  4. I am not in any sense, shape, or form disrupting the project voicing the opinions I have recently made on WP:NFCR. I strongly, in the most animated terms, object to this accusation of disruption.
  5. In regards to the diff you cite here, I am absolutely, 100% honest in my opinion that it should remain. I am not being disingenuous in the slightest.
  6. If there is something that is inaccurate in this thread, it is your statement "it will take a while to clear up" (though I know you did not mean it as an inaccuracy). It can't be cleaned up, and it never has been cleaned up. If we were to take NFCC as you apparently think it should be enforced as a measure of progress towards our compliance with it, the state of matters has progressively become worse, and worse, and worse...inexorably so.
  7. You may not like my statements that stand in opposition to your delete comments. You are certainly welcome to your own opinion. However, your opinion will not sway me any more than my current stance is swaying you. I can not and will not be described as "disruptive" in voicing my opinion, and to threaten me with further action against me for voicing my opinion is extremely objectionable. I have done absolutely nothing wrong any more than you have done something wrong for voicing an opinion to delete. What is wrong is you threatening me for voicing an opinion. There have been a number of people who vocally oppose application of NFCC policy. I can cite quite a number of them, as I'm sure you can as well. They too have frequently voted to keep things in opposition to tight applications of NFCC knowledge. My stance is no different than theirs with one exception; I use to stand opposite to them but no longer do. I have a right to change my opinion and I will not be threatened by you or anyone else for changing it.
  • The opinion I do carry now is strongly based on years of experience in the NFCC field. It is not a position I take on a whim. It is a position I have evolved to through careful consideration of where this project is and is going. It is not taken lightly; I am a fervent believer in the free culture movement. I have long maintained that this project has lost its way in so far as it being a gratis resource. I used to have a userbox on my userpage which said "With roughly 350,000 375,000 400,000 425,000 copyrighted images, Wikipedia is the world's largest repository of copyrighted images. Whoever thinks we've managed to stay focused on our mission, please contact me. I'd like to buy some of what you're smoking." (it's a lot higher now). That statement was there for years. My position now is really not much different than it was when I first posted that.
  • Part of my position now is that NFCC arguments are the disruption themselves. They directly get in the way of the project achieving the goal of being an encyclopedia. The average reader simply doesn't care if a given image is free or not. They want an image, and that's it. Have a look at the feedback for Kim Jong-un. Through the first 50 messages there, full 40% of them are asking for a picture. These are but a small example of the typical user who comes here. They don't care if something is free or not. It has no relevance to them. So, when someone comes along and tears down non-free content from a page a very large segment of the reading population is frustrated by this. People who are frustrated are far more willing to engage in a discussion to undo their frustration than a person happy with an article will be to keep an article as it is without the non-free content. That's just the first part of the problem that completely undermines NFCC.
  • Another part, a part which you've disagreed with in the past (if memory serves) but readily applies is that the debates that do spring up about a NFCC issue are rarely final if those debates rule in favor of the position you (in general) hold. They are repeated over and over and over again. This creates a massive amount of make-work for people who do strive to enforce NFCC. This detracts from the available manpower, and makes enforcing NFCC all the more difficult. In response to this, you've been insistent that we can't have bots do this work. I see solutions that do not involve bots that can make this work a lot easier, but you and others keep shooting this down. So, I gave up on that point.
  • Both of these above points illustrate why NFCC can't be enforced in anything other than a small, nagging corner of the project way. There never has been and never will be enough volunteers to overcome these issues, to give the project sufficient manpower to enforce it. As a case example of this, I'm aware of a discography with multiple non-free covers on it. We banned those years ago. Yet, that article has sat there for months with no one paying it the slightest mind. Both of these points also show why the NFCC arguments are the disruption themselves. I could describe the remove-revert-discuss-<wait some time>-put in NFC-go back to step 1 cycle we routinely have, but you are just as aware of it as I am. If the NFC were allowed to remain in the first place, there would be no disruption.
  • Another problem; in the discography I noted above, the covers were placed there by an editor with five years experience, and more than 10,000 edits to his name. He's not a clueless newbie. Yet, he apparently never thought this a problem (and still doesn't). That points to serious editor training issues that have never been fixed nor paid even the slightest attention.
  • You are an apparent believer in the idea that there will be enough manpower, someday, somehow that will cure all of this using the current structures and methods available. This notion is false, most emphatically when faced with seriously declining editor and administrator bases. The project has reached a point where preservation of the content rather than creation of the content has to become far more of a focus. However, this is not happening nor is it going to happen any time soon. The Foundation has focused its intention on trying to increase the inexorably declining base of editors, rather than recognize the realities of the situation they are in, a fact I editorialized about here. I'm going to combine this with the next point further on...
  • The Foundation has been approached multiple times about the issue of non-free content usage. The responses to date have been, effectively mute. The only exceptions have been to say we here on en.wp are not violating fair use law. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from this is they are no longer interested in seeing NFCC enforced to minimize reliance on non-free content.
  • Now combining the above two points...it is clear from these and other inputs that the only rational conclusion that can be drawn is that liberal use of non-free content within the bounds of U.S. fair use law is acceptable. What is "proper NFC" is an opinion. We do not share the same opinion of what "proper NFC" is. That doesn't make me wrong and you right, nor does it give you leave to insult me and threaten me for having an opposite opinion to yours. Have I advocated anyone upload as much non-free content as they like? No. Have I edit warred to retain non-free content? No. Have I approached any of the people who attempt to enforce NFCC to get them to stop doing so? No. Have I added non-free content in violation of strict interpretation of NFCC policy? No. Have I insulted anyone over NFCC issues? No. Have I done anything other than voice an opinion? No.
  • With regards to not insulting people, the same can not be said of User:Gbawden, who beginning with this NFCR insulted Stefan multiple times. You don't seem to have taken issue with him voicing his opinion, and haven't called him disruptive for doing so.
  • I hope you now further understand my position and will acquit me of the crime of disruption for having an opinion and voicing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notes

[5]

Your false accusations

Looking forward to your response at User talk:Alan Liefting with regard to my alleged "revert" of his posts, and your acknowledgement of his misuse of rollback and his accusations of me being a "vandal". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I noted here, I am disengaging. Continued discussion between the two of us is (a) not helping Alan, (b) muddying the waters in the posts that have already been made there and (c) unlikely to convince either of us of the veracity of each other's words. So thanks, but no thanks. And please, let's not restart the same debate here. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would just appreciate you correcting your clear and blatant errors in accusing me of actions that I did not engage in. Nothing to do with your continual pointing to DISENGAGE, just an attempt to actually produce a legitimate and factually accurate presentation of what happened, rather than a version which is clearly erroneous and denigrating. Please fix your comments so they reflect reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not re-engaging in this discussion, thank you. Lack of re-engagement should not be construed that I tacitly agree with you, or that I think anything needs to be corrected or not. I am simply disengaging. Please stop this line of inquiry. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay, so you're happy to allow your false accusations and lies to stand. I get it. I find that incomprehensibly disgusting. Disengagement should not mean your lies and errors should be allowed to stand. I'll keep your attitude in mind in future. Would you object if I strike all your lies out? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I object to you editing my comments, regardless of your opinion of them. This discussion is over. Further comments from you in this thread are not welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And welcome to you too!

Wow, a welcome template! You're about 7 years late, but thanks anyway ;-] --Slashme (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem! I've done similar things myself before. What's happening at the moment is that I'm giving a course in 2 weeks. The material is here: meta:Wikimedia_South_Africa/Training, and the students are doing the first exercise, so they're creating usernames and showing their work by putting messages on my talk page. --Slashme (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I'm glad you like the hat: it's one of my favourite goofy hats ;-) --Slashme (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I might just get a grant if I play my cards right! Although, I'd probably walk into the office and find the civil servant wearing a lion tamer hat, and realise that I'm out of my depth. --Slashme (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

Could you explain why it cannot be copied (not moved) to wiktionary where it would be the basis for policy there? Obviously I could simply copy the whole text without edit history. I thought that one tries to preserve edit history. DCDuring (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concern was that the template seemed to suggest copy & remove from here. Given that wikitionary does have to comply with the WMF's resolution on non-free content, you're certainly free to use en.wiki's version, though you probably need consensus there to make sure that others on that project agree to it. We just need our copy of NFCC left here :) --MASEM (t) 13:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "move" template and a "copy" template. How does using "copy" imply "move"? Do we need a "copy and don't delete" template" too? Of course, we need consensus. It is simply better if working from a draft to understand the history of the draft. If that violates a WP policy, I'd like to know what that policy is. DCDuring (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're fine, don't worry about it. There are other templates, like Copy to Commons, that implies a "move" and not a copy, I thnk that's what Hammer thought it was here. This was not. Feel free to go ahead and copy it over. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to copy it, then copy it. But, do not use {{Copy to Wiktionary}}. HersfoldBot hasn't edited since July. Of course, in copying, please leave the local copy intact and extant. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting vandalism

Hey, no idea where to put this, but I just want to thank you for proving to my U.S. History teacher how useful and correct Wikipedia is. Your speed at correcting my intentionally made "Charlie Sheen" replacements astounded me. However, she refused to acknowledge me after that. Either way, thanks. And keep up the good work. --Exmawsh (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're quite welcome. Do be aware though that not all vandalism is caught rapidly. Some vandalism can be extant for months, even years before being detected. The question of the reliability of Wikipedia has been one open to discussion ever since the inception of Wikipedia. You may be interested in reading Reliability of Wikipedia. Your teacher would be well served in reading that article before pronouncing judgment as to Wikipedia's accuracy. Wikipedia has consistently favorably compared against other "accepted" encyclopedias. The concept of random people coming together to produce a quality work when anyone can edit the project is one that many well intentioned people have difficulty accepting. Nevertheless, it has worked very well indeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joke

Hello, I'm Analize This!. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Your mom because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analize This! (talk • contribs)

  • You forgot to sign your joke. I've done it for you. In the future, please sign your comments with "--~~~~" (without the quotes). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my opinion

I am sorry but I have no connections to anyone here. like you wrote "Findblogging". I only express my opinion and the opinion of many Turks all over the world. Why I have to be blamed to be someone else. By the way the computer that I use is a public place and there is high possibility that many other people used it to open accounts within Wikipedia. Please solve this problem and help me.

MaintiredTurkiye (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to stop this unusual situation to be blocked just because I use public computer? --MaintiredTurkiye (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

Hey Hammersoft,

I wanted to let you know that I am retired now. I thought about this carefully, but the truth is that I just no longer care about Wikipedia. There is no single reason for this decision, but when I ask myself now whether I should log in to Wikipedia, the questions Why? What for? keep coming to my mind and I don't have a answer to that could actually convince me to do so. I enjoyed much of the time I've been here, but I feel that it has to end now.

You've been one of the editors I've had the most respect for, in part because you've always been acting according to your beliefs, even if that meant to be in disagreement with 99% of the editors here. It has been a pleasure to meet you here.

Take care and goodbye.

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been a distinct pleasure working with you! I have always maintained that I do not have nor do I want friends here. You and I have disagreed from time to time, but I have always held you in great respect. You intrigue me. Though I am no Scrooge (apropos, given the season!), there are few people on here whom I would look forward to meeting. You are one of them. I fully understand and appreciate your reasons for departure.
  • Looking at Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is clear that Wikipedia is failing. The 3rd through 5th pillars are void and have no meaning now. We casually disrespect our free content mission, and the entire project is plagued with an overwhelming body of non-free content. Civility principles were long since abandoned, to the point where even arbitrators themselves are routinely rude and otherwise grossly uncivil. The body of rules that exist now, both written and unwritten, are so difficult to learn that it prohibits the continuance of new good faith editors. And in the end, all of it is being led by a group of incompetent leaders calling themselves the "Foundation". If indeed they were a foundation for any building, such a building would not withstand any tempest. They are a mockery of professionalism. What, then, to edit for? I wonder sometimes myself why I should bother to continue.
  • When tossed by a storm, without guide of the stars nor light of day, a ship at sea looks to the shining lighthouse to avoid danger. Your passing from our midst is the extinguishing of a lighthouse. With that, we as a project draw nearer to foundering upon the rocks. You will be missed Toshio, you will be missed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Is there a section where I can list my support for your userpage statement? 24.61.9.111 (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you would like, you are certainly welcome to add a support section beneath the statement and add yourself to it. Of course, you're editing as an IP and thus it will immediately be presumed you are a vandal. Reference this discussion in your edit summary. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bilbo's sock farm

Sometimes ANI is a nice place to be. And groovy. Well spotted, by the way. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks :) Even a cesspool can smell less offensive on some days. I guess this is one of those days for WP:AN/I :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use photo?

Hi, Hammersoft. In Barry Seal, I stumbled upon a graphic photo that claims in the image summary to be of Seal and that it was originally "taken by a Louisiana police crime photographer". As its source, it gives this link but that source appears to be unreliable (per WP standards) and doesn't cite the original source of the photo. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on this? Thanks again! Location (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Username

You left a message saying my username doesn't represent me as individual. Well is just combination of my hometown Tampere and electronic band called Dallas Superstars -> Tamperesuperstars. There is no band, bar, company or anything like that I'm aware of, so my nick shouldn't offend anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamperesuperstars (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Doncram

I find comments like this unhelpful, not to mention a rather woeful demonstration of statistical relevance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opinions not held by other people are often viewed negatively by those not holding them. I find your appraisal of my summary of the cases over the last three years to be off the mark. We each have opinions. Yours is no more valid than mine.
  • If you want to change things, then work to improve the unprofessional environment on ArbCom. The reality is, bias or no, if a person is named in the title of a case they stand a very, very high chance of being found guilty and having sanctions placed against them. Only one person in 18 hasn't. Not least of these problems is the fact they are hampered in their ability to defend themselves. Such cases tend to turn into free for alls against the named person. That's certainly the case here, with 16 people other than the named person making statements, and linked evidence going back three years. There's no way Doncram will ever be able to successfully defend himself against that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not attacking you as a person, I'm sorry if my note felt combative. But your conclusions are suspect. Each case is not a repeatable trial, and each party does not act the same. Editors who have done nothing sanctionable rarely end up at arbitration, so it only follows that there would be few who don't get sanctioned by the end--the whole point of arbitration is to deal with disputes that can't be solved by simpler/lower channels. In short there's a soup of lurking variables that render any blanket statement like "your doomed to some sort of sanction, with a 50/50 chance of being banned from the project" unable to be proven, and thus unhelpful. If you have suggestions about what arbitration proceedings should be named, I'd certainly be happy to hear them and I'm sure the rest of the committee would as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize there is bias in the selection, because as you state it is behavior that brought the case. Is it improper to say that a 50/50 likelihood exists? That's no more improper than asserting the case name has nothing to do with those results. What we do know, and all we know, is that in 50% of the cases over the last three years where the case was named after one or more individuals those individuals ended up being banned from the project.
  • Doncram has every reason to be concerned about the possibility of being banned from the project. His concern about the naming of the case is being rebuffed. It is no surprise the case has already become a free for all against him, with linked evidence going back three years. The case is already polluted.
  • That said, I do think that naming cases after people pollutes the proceedings. It tilts the table unnecessarily against a single individual who is party to the case. This has certainly had the effect of people striving to be the first to the punch, to be the one who names cases. I come to a case about JohnDoe and I've been involved in situations with JohnDoe, I think it highly likely I would be considering what evidence I would have to submit about JohnDoe. Only after carefully reading such a case might I become aware that JaneSmith is integral to the case and I should also be submitting evidence about her. So, in the very naming of the case ArbCom could be cut off from crucial evidence about all parties, not just the one you are naming in the title of the case.
  • I don't have a suggestion for case naming at this time. I'll think about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far in this case there have been 23 editors other than Doncram making statements. Of those 23, 11 stand against Doncram. Those 11 have posted >5300 words in their statements, or about 480 words per statement. Of the 12 not standing against Doncram, they have posted ~3100 words, or about 258 per statement. It is worth noting that Doncram's opponents are about twice as verbose as those who are not posting opposed to him. I've been watching cases rather closely now for quite some time. I could dig back through cases and develop the same type of data, but of course that would take a great deal of time. Operating off my own impressions, this set of data is similar to other cases where one of the parties to the case is named in the title of the case.
  • From my view, Doncram has already lost this case before it's even formally been accepted. He's already been asked to trim his statement. He has >5300 words voicing opinions against him, and he's forced to constrain himself to 500 words or less. Even if he is right and everyone else is wrong (not likely, but bear with me), convincing ArbCom of that will be impossible because he will not have sufficient space, even at 1000 words, to rebut everything being said against him. All his opposers have to do is crank out as much crap as possible and hope some of it sticks to the wall, unrebutted, and Doncram is toast. The very structure of ArbCom cases makes it effectively impossible for a title-named party to a case to appropriately defend themselves.
  • Abstractly; I also note ArbCom's standard behavior when an editor with multiple people complaining about that editor being brought before them. It is rare indeed for ArbCom to wade through everything and find in favor of the editor. The standard solution is that if a single person is at the center of a dispute, ban/sanction that person. I've commented elsewhere about this before. In short, it's viewing the fire triangle and believing you've done a great job putting out the fire because you've eliminated oxygen, without recognizing the enormous amount of fuel and heat you leave lying around. It solves nothing.
  • Specifically; in this case Doncram has been the victim of multiple personal attacks from multiple people. I will lay fair odds that none of them will be sanctioned for these attacks. Instead, there will be a 'remedy' of reminding/cautioning editors to remain civil. Further, ArbCom will look at the mere existence of an RfC against Doncram, the existence of a topic ban in another area, the existence of a non-empty block log, and presume Doncram is bad. Since he's so bad, and there's a preponderance of unrebutted evidence against him, then the 'logical' conclusion is to ban him. Remove him, the problem goes away. It's the easiest solution, right?
  • I beg and hope for better. ArbCom hasn't accepted a case in half a year. It's not like your desks are overflowing with reams of paperwork with a high speed fan blowing it around your offices. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly say that arbitration requests are usually a mess, particularly because it's hard for clerks to police statement lengths when things are getting added, rebutted, responded to at a furious rate. However as you're no doubt well aware from watching arbitration cases, a lot of those people don't actually end up participating in the evidence section. I know from the decisions I've helped draft some parties were upset that we didn't sanction X or Y because they treated it as obvious and didn't actually enter in relevant evidence. To that end I think there's an issue with the "culture" of arbitration requests, so to speak, which I'm not sure you can really fix.
As to the subject of evidence, I believe we've been talking about using the talk page for specific rebuttals to provide space for parties who are "outnumbered" room to refute claims, while allowing easier moderation in case things get heated. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem with the perception of Arbcom can be characterised by the statment above, Editors who have done nothing sanctionable rarely end up at arbitration. It is this attitude that is the reason that a lot of us feel that Arbcom is the equivelant of Wikideath. Yes its true a few have escaped but its by exception only and those cases do not charachterise the norm. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly not neutral. "You're here; you must be guilty of something". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked that a temporary injunction be placed because of your unconstructive comments on the arb case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop

I have hatted the discussion regarding your behaviour, as I consider it immaterial to the case at hand; if there is anything that you feel ought to be discussed further, please do so on the talk page of the editor whose comments you take issue with. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Salvio, it's the other way around and I oppose the hatting. In hatting it the first time, AGK found me guilty. The issue isn't closed, and certainly not by someone concluding I'm guilty without identifying what it is I am supposedly guilty of. AGK is well capable of hatting it himself if he'd like to do so. It is entirely unnecessary for you to do so. Please unhat it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that the discussion has nothing to do with the case at hand and can only serve to distract from the issues which need our attention. I'm not saying you need to drop it entirely, I'm just asking you to please discuss it elsewhere. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have been quite happy to have it elsewhere; Sarek forcibly dragged me into it. Now a member of ArbCom has found me guilty of something...of what I don't know. That was the appropriate place to discuss it because that is where it was dragged to. If it's inappropriate for me to be posting there, than Sarek's temporary injunction request should have been removed when it was posted. I wasn't party to the case, had not edited on the request, and had not edited on any of the case pages. I note that you have notified me of the hatting only; not the other two parties (Jtrainor and AGK) who continued the discussion after AGK hatted it. Why? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did it out of courtesy, actually. You were the one asking for answers and I deemed it polite to let you know why, in my opinion, your concerns ought to have been expressed elsewhere. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • When reading it from your perspective, I understand and appreciate the courtesy. So I'm left in a position where I disagree with the action, but appreciate the courtesy. ArbCom has in the past used discussions where a given party was not found at fault against that same party as some proof of guilt. Getting closure on this would have helped me address whatever misconduct I was supposedly guilty of and avoided the possibility of ArbCom wrongfully using this declined injunction against me. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=534516674"