Jump to content

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 DerHexer (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 30 December 2014 (→‎Global account: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Note re: Lethtotheb

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

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

Name

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

  • *shrug* There's a lot of strange names in other languages. Is it possible? Not likely, but non-zero probability. I've kept tabs on the account, and to date it hasn't edited since that day. I'm usually patient and willing to see how things play out. I have his talk page watch-listed. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info

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

Edit taken down for Hofbrauhaus Pittsburgh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

  • Certainly! I noticed it was missing when I went to set up a vandal report for Tenorsaxattack (talk · contribs) (who hasn't violated the final warning yet). I don't know how/when it got removed. Maybe that's something HBC AIV helperbot7 should look for? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a new editor, I think 24 edits as of yet, honest mistake while reporting. Having HBC AIV helperbot(s) look for it would be rather helpful. And while yes, the final line has not been crossed after the level 4 warning, clearly, one who comments that much about fapping in article space, is certainly headed in that direction. If you take exception to my block, I am happy to discuss it further, if you would like.--kelapstick(bainuu) 15:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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

PMCpropertygroupwiki

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

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

Opera Coast article

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

Can you offer guidance?

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

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

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

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

QR Code

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

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

Request for retrieval of previous information

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

Why the harrasment?

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

Note

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

  • It was a direct match for an organization in Little Rock, Arkansas. Please see their Facebook profile. The user acknowledged the connection in their (appropriate) request for username change. Xeno, the reality is we disagree on this issue. I'm quite happy to follow policy and/or guideline on this point. As I've noted before, policy and guideline are equivocal on this issue. There is room for both views. Should the RfC view in your favor, I'll be happy to follow that. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    very fair, thanks –xenotalk 15:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno (hoping that the automatic messaging thingy notifies you of this); I'm beginning to think that the RfC as structured is faulty. We have several issues at hand, and the RfC strikes me as not really addressing any of the points fairly. We have a variety of account types that are created here that could be problematic. I don't think a broad paintbrush principle can work for all cases. I think perhaps the RfC needs to be shutdown, and several new ones begun covering each significant case. As I see it, we have cases of (1) blatantly attacking/offensive usernames, (2) questionable usernames as attacking/offensive, (3) blatant corporate usernames, (4) questionable corporate names, (5) impersonation usernames. Perhaps there are others? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to reformulate the RfC like this, perhaps we should just let it run and then re-run another one if necessary. The changed wording still gives broad room for judgment, especially for e.g., a questionable attack username you'd rather warn than report to UAA.
  • Sometimes I wish we would all just have numbered usernames. They're just an identifier for edits and they really have no 'promotional' value in themselves. It is the edits that matter, and if the username never makes a single edit the only one seeing it is people who patrol the user creation screen and it has as close to zero 'promotional value' as possible. I'd be interesting in your data on how many username warnings you've issued to 0 edit users who still remain 0 edits.
  • This discussion reminds me that some years ago someone from some usability initiative took out all guidance about potentially 'inappropriate usernames' from the user creation screen. Perhaps that should go back in. –xenotalk 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On data; post initiation of RfC, I did two things...one, suspended my actions in warning corporate usernames and two, began recording and tracking usernames that I would have warned but for the suspension. I have 30 catalogued right now, but would need several thousand to be statistically relevant. So, not terribly motivated :( But, I'm tracking out of curiosity anyway. Two of the 30 ended up getting warned by others. One of them was blocked before they edited again, and the other had their username changed. 6 of them are still open and editing. 5 were blocked. 19 have not edited and remain open. I remind you this data is not statistically relevant. On the guidance; given that we have in excess of 103,000 promotional usernames that have been blocked, having SOMETHING to deter conflict of interest before it happens would indeed be useful. Assuming (a real stretch) that the above data were statistically relevant, 1/3rd of promotional accounts begin editing. That's a veritable flood of material (34000+ accounts editing) that is largely unusable and has to be removed from the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno (is this working or you just happening to watch?) Case point; I collected another ten coi-username accounts today for data. One of them is actively editing mainspace. They are editing an article which has over 500 inbound links, less than 30 watchers, and a talk page that hasn't been edited in over a year. The article's been around since 2004, and has less than 500 edits total. It is an article on a company which we would never dream of getting rid of. However, the work that the very much biased editor is doing will require a very significant rewrite to be acceptable. They are actively hurting the article right now. The account's been active for about an hour now, and nobody has done anything with respect to this editor. This case is not isolated. You might able to discern what account this is from the information above. I would ask that you not do so to allow the data to remain intact. I will eventually correct the article myself. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno, I took a look at the last 100 accounts that I sent a {{uw-coi-username}} warning to. In most, if not all, cases I gave these warnings prior to first edit. I didn't look specifically for that; I just don't have the time to do an absolutely thorough examination of each case. I also do not have access to deleted edits, so can not determine if the accounts which show no edits did in fact edit (though this is probably a small or non-existent subset). Of the 100 accounts, 54 have done editing of some kind. This suggests the 1/3rd approximation above is perhaps low. But, 100 data points is not much more statistically relevant than the above data set. However, in both cases it appears the share of promotional accounts that begin editing is significant. Also, taking another look at the 40 case data set above, 13 of 40 have edited. Of those 13, 8 remain open, unblocked. This _is_ a ridiculously small data set, so take this with a very large grain of salt; our systems for handling promotional accounts without warning them prior to editing seem weak. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC still has just over a week, but it seems clear that opinion on it is sufficiently divided that you can go ahead and continue warning users prior to their first edit at your discretion. Thanks for your input on the subject. –xenotalk 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Udonis Haslem photo (?)

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

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

Media Viewer RfC case opened

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

Too much time

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

Suspect upload to Commons

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

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

  • Tagged as copyvio of [7]. He has six other uploads that I am investigating as well. Soooo many people think that if they find something on the Internet it is theirs to do with as they like. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Hammer. Actually, when I repeatedly see newly registered accounts uploading non-free images to Commons with bogus free-image licenses -- not exactly newbie behavior -- it becomes apparent that this is some sort of a game for repeat offenders. I only have about 1400 articles on my primary watch list; I can only imagine how bad the problem is project wide. Oddly, though, this pattern of activity seems to mostly target current athletes or other celebrities; I don't see many non-free images of other notable persons, especially historical persons. Says something about the people playing the game, I suppose. I hope you don't mind if I refer these problems to you periodically. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. Happy to provide service. All of the image uploads of this user have been tagged as copyright violations and I left him a warning. And on the game continues.
  • The underlying problem here is really systemic. As the editor base continues to decline, the manpower available to police such additions of images and other content to the various wikimedia projects becomes incapable of handling the influx. This language edition of Wikipedia will eventually be overwhelmed. The model for how things are policed here is woefully obsolete.
  • Case point; for years now we have been tagging and removing images of Kim Jong-un from that article due to him being alive, and our non-acceptance of non-free images of living people in almost all cases. The images uploaded and claimed to be 'free' are always non-free. Frustratingly, the images keep repeating, and we keep having repeated work to police the same thing over and over again.
  • I can imagine a different scenario; a bot that is capable of looking at a case book, comparing an upload to existing cases of known non-free images (from prior decisions), and declaring the image quarantined and not eligible to be used until reviewed by a human. Google images is capable of comparing images and finding results that match. I'm sure we can do the same. This would dramatically reduce the workload of the (diminishing base of) editors who police images. Another potential bot; a bot that analyzes the metadata and finds copyright information within it. If it does, the image is again quarantined. Sadly, these bots will not come to pass, and Wikipedia will eventually be overwhelmed by this and similar problems.
  • I commented on the life cycle of organizations here, back in 2011. Three years later, and the "top priority" the Board chose of reversing the downward trend of editors has failed to produce any fruit. They can't stop it. They must adapt. To date, they haven't. I hold no hope they will. The recent dust-up over the media viewer lays bare the immaturity of the WMF as a body. They are grossly incompetent...and worse, defend their incompetence. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

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

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

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

Tvsdesign

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

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

Full circle: back to the beginning

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

  • You have questions for me? Hrm. Well, I have a question for you. Are you insane? :) NFCC enforcement is (a) permanently short handed, (b) futile, (c) causes incredible amounts of grief for the person who does it and (d) is usually very disruptive to the project. Lots of things generate acrimony on this project, to be sure. NFCC is certainly one of the top five most contentious areas on the project. Despite all the tension, all the threads on various noticeboards going after this and that person who is abusing NFCC, etc. etc. etc., our situation vis-a-vis is worse today than it was even just a year ago, and far worse than a few years ago. We now have inexcess of half a million non-free images on this 'free' project. Any notion that the project is 'free' is laughable in the extreme. While our article creation is tailing off, the increase in non-free photos has not. I.e., the ratio of non-free content to articles is getting larger, and larger and larger. I tell you this not to gripe but to make sure you fully understand the ramifications of what it is you are volunteering to do.
  • Understand that your legal experience will have little use in NFCC enforcement. Far more important is a devotion to the concept of the free culture movement, a strong understanding of the clear delineation between free as in libre and free as in gratis. Wikipedia:Veganism parable is an excellent essay on the subject that serves as a primer to understanding this highly contentious issue. From there, a visit to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement would be good. Long, but gives a good understanding of how contentious this is and why so much of NFCC fails on contact with reality. Another good primer is Wikipedia:Fair use overuse.
  • If you would like to use your legal talents, then you can explain to me how this image of the Burj Khalifa is considered free in the U.S. when both the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates are signatories to the Berne Convention, and there is no freedom of panorama in the UAE for architectural works. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's what I was told, H. I know it can be contentious -- from personal experience. And I see you're already asking the hard questions; remember, I'm a commercial real estate and corporate lawyer, not an IP attorney. That having been said, like any set of rules, WP NFCC policy has its own logic and precedents, even if we're not relying on U.S. copyright law. I've already taken on the informal task of explaining NFCC to other sports editors when they demand to insert copyrighted team images into articles where they don't belong. So, I think I would start small in my existing editing areas and expand outward with time. Accordingly, I'm contemplating a new user name --
  • Dirthammer!
  • Martel des Images!
  • Martel du Loi!
  • Lawhammer!
What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Dirtlawyer1, see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#If_it.27s_legal.2C_it.27s_ok. please. This is really just a continuation of the never ending debate about NFCC and its application. We've had this policy for the better part of a decade now. You'd think we would have hammered out the details and gotten it all cleared up by now. Unfortunately, this is simply not possible with the talents of the volunteers who have so far offered their services to this project. As a result, NFCC will always be highly contentious. Are you sure you want to venture into this? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I found the NFCC talk page discussion already and watch-listed it for the insights it may provide. My planned approach to NFCC is to be a "guide to compliance," and to be an "enforcer" only when necessary and the knuckleheads won't listen. As you know from our interaction, I encounter a lot of users uploading copyrighted photos of living athletes for whom there are few if any exceptions for using NFCC images. For some of these users, this is clearly some sort of game to see how many known NFCC images they can upload and get away with, which I find bizarre. The other NFCC issue I encounter frequently in my editing is the indiscriminate use of copyrighted team logos beyond their reasonable fair use on primary team pages -- editors with no knowledge of the NFCC policy and guidelines will insert the copyrighted logo into secondary season and rivalry articles, and that can usually be resolved by reverting the change and explaining the NFCC policy to the newbies in a friendly manner about 95% of the time. Part of the resolution of the team logo issue is simply educating other experienced editors so the NFCC policy becomes largely self-enforcing within the sports WikiProjects. Where I need training is the ability to search and identify suspected copyrighted photos and how to deal with them on Commons once they have been identified as NFCC images. I, of course, also need to deepen my understanding of the NFCC policy and guidelines, and some of that comes from learning by doing and with experience. I plan to start slow and expand to areas outside my usual areas of editing as my comfort level grows. Not looking to lead the crusade, just do my part. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coincidentally, I happened across User:Askriga14 today who uploaded a bunch of images of players in European basketball leagues. All of them were copyright violations, and all have been deleted. I was able to identify all of them but one as copyright violations via using Google images. As an example; let's take File:Race Gurram poster.jpg (the image is used properly here; just an example case). I open the image here locally (clicking on the file link I have there works fine for this example). I take note of the image's maximum dimensions (in this case, 300 x 420). I then roller-clock (alternatively, right click - view image), then copy the url of the resulting image. This gives you a source URL of the image you want to identify as a possible copyright violation. Next, I go to Google images. On that page, there is a little camera icon. If you mouse over it, it says "search by image". Click on that, and in the resulting box paste the URL you copied above. I get this. I most often then click on "All sizes" [9]. From here, it's a bit of a guess as to what the source site is especially when there are many results as in this case. I always go with an image source that is at least as large as the image on Wikipedia (300x420 in this case). Clicking on any of the images gives you the opportunity to visit the page or view the image. Sometimes visiting the page gives you nothing; the image has been removed from the page. In such cases, I {{db-f9}} the image with the URL of the "view image" option, rather than the URL of the "visit page" option. Does that make sense? Bit involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, different, but related subject: talk to me about the "dead guy" fair use rule: File:Don Chandler.jpeg. What does an uploading editor have to do to properly document a fair use rationale for an NFCC image of a dead person? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dead guy exception isn't an absolute. But, generally speaking, if someone is dead the expectation that a free license image of the person could be created is gone, since the are decidedly unavailable for photo sessions. Ingrates. Anyway, it's not an absolute as the requirement under WP:NFCC #1 states "no free equivalent is available". Due diligence must be exerted to attempt to find a free license image of the person. For example, if the person happened to live in a life span that spanned a time period from before 1983, it is possible there might be an image out there of the person that has expired copyright. Effort should be exerted to find such imagery rather than simply defaulting to a non-free image just because the person is dead. If due diligence is taken, and no free imagery can be found, then a non-free image would be acceptable. In this particular case, Chandler's playing career spanned an era where copyrights certainly existed and can still exist, but if it hasn't be renewed it might have expired. Effort should be undertaken to find such images if it has not already been done. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were going to use the case of the Don Chandler jpeg (looks like a playing card photo) as an example from which to learn, where would you suggest I start? What are my resources for looking for alternatives (Google image search? Flickr?), and how do I check the copyright status for a given photo -- say, for instance, of the Don Chandler player card above?
BTW, I hate to be a party poop, but you know very few image uploaders who are asserting the dead guy exception are engaging in the due diligence you suggested above, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirtlawyer1: The first question I would ask is when this photo was first published. This was clearly published after 1923, so reasonably could be expected to be copyrighted. If it was published before 1989, then an interesting question would be whether it had a copyright notice (per Copyright law of the United States#Copyright_notices). Those questions might be a good start. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Toshio. I am trying to get an introductory education to NFCC compliance and enforcement issues. Feel free to jump in, either here (assuming Hammer doesn't mind) or on my talk page. Right now, I am doing a lot of listening, reading and learning. If you think I'm missing something, please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames for attention

Hi: I thought you might want to know that I've blocked User:Ilikebigbutts&icannotlie. While it's not the most offensive username I've encountered, as it's lascivious rather than scatological, I agree with you that it certainly has the potential to offend, and is therefore potentially disruptive. -- The Anome (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Whale ^^^^^^


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

For convincing an admin to block Ilikebigbutts@icannotlie before they even got a chance to edit. AGF would have been nice. Maybe you need to stop participating in UAA for a while. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to take that as a compliment. Thank you! For what it's worth, I didn't canvas, forum shop, or make any attempt to convince any admins other than those that happened to be looking at WP:UAA. The blocking admin decided on their own, weighing the weight of the arguments present at WP:UAA. I'm sorry you're not happy with the result. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the User Page of The Anome:

Kosh, WP:UAA asks us to either report the username or discuss the issue with the user. I chose the former, as I find the name deeply objectionable. I did nothing wrong. I am not required, and even WP:UAA asks us not to, discuss the username with the user if it is seriously objectionable. Describing my debate regarding the user name as "scream[ing] loud as hell" is nothing short of a personal attack, and is compounded by the thread you posted on my talk page. I recommend you drop it; if the person wants to continue editing under that name they can request an unblock, directions for which are already on their talk page. '


Actually the UAA page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked. (Per the actual instructions on the page), this user name wasn't blatant or serious, it fell to #3, where all participants are asked to discuss less-serious violations with the user so that they can rename or abandon their account in good faith (also per the same page). I realize you believe what I said was a personal attack, but I stand by it, you did scream loud as hell until you found an admin to block that User ID. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You feel it isn't blatant and serious. I do. We disagree. This does not make you or me automatically right and the other wrong. I'm sorry you're disappointed at the result. Perhaps you can discuss it with User:Ilikebigbutts&icannotlie. His block does not include a talk page block. I'm sure he'd be amenable to discussing the issue with you. As to standing by your personal attack upon me; since you can't seem to keep a civil tongue, stay off my talk page. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bots

Who runs Rich Farmbrough's bots if he doesn't? Who runs SmackBot and so on? Odd that neither on his own talk nor on RfD, where I posted genuine apologies, there is no reply from Rich Farmbrough.

Si Trew (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arsénio Rodrigues Jardim

Hammersoft the name of the player Seninho is Arsénio Rodrigues Jardim, he is my familiar.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soares29nuno (talk • contribs) 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://estrelas-do-fcp.blogspot.pt/2010/09/seninho.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soares29nuno (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note re: Conflict of Interest

Good morning, Thanks for helping me out with the rules. I really should have read more about editing the pages before I started adding things to the Florida State Forest pages, because I got through a lot of edits before I knew I was doing wrong. I am waiting on the OK from the OTRS volunteers before making any additions/changes. I appreciate your feedback and will work on the pages in a more neutral manner and use other sources in addition to the FFS website. It certainly wasn't my intention to be non-neutral or spam. Just wanted to get the info on the page since the information was very much lacking.ChelseaFLForestService (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your openness and willingness to work with us. You can be a great resource for us in working with these articles, but we must be careful as I've noted. Understand; even if OTRS approves the copyright release of the text, we can't use it as it. As I've noted, it's advertising copy, taken directly from your website which is intended to promote these state properties. Myself and others have, at this point, undone all of your edits to the respective articles. So where do we go from here? There's instructions regarding productive editing for new editors. See Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers/Welcome. But, more importantly I believe the work that you want to apply to the articles will fundamentally change and dramatically increase the scope of each of the articles. That's fine, but before we proceed I think having some drafts to review beforehand would be helpful. I'm willing to help you with this process. So, as a place where we can work to develop this as a trial space, I've created User:ChelseaFLForestService/Indian Lake State Forest. I invite you to make improvements to that, and I'll work with you to develop it in accordance with our policies. How's that? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thank you. Again, I apologize for jumping the gun and getting ahead of myself. This is not something I will be able to work on in depth immediately, but I am excited to work on it. Thank you so much for your help. ChelseaFLForestService (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can help you with? I'm extremely bored. Btw, whats your favourite colour?Amanda Smalls 19:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 parts blue, 2 parts yellow, 1 part praple, 1.7 parts plaid with pink polkadots. Still bored? :) I can find things for you to do :) With respect to these articles, you could go through the state properties that Chelsea edited and expand them, using hopefully secondary sources but primary, if used in moderation, is ok too. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just got turned off by that.Amanda Smalls 19:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't sound like what I meant to say.Amanda Smalls 19:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SSM Template

Hi Hammersoft! Now someone is trying to protect the Same-sex Marriage template from even more editing. Would you be willing to disagree with this proposal at [Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection]? Thanks either way! Difbobatl (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty:20 (film)

Hai Hammersoft i think the user Wiki-senetor is seems to be a big fan of actor Mohanlal..he is vandalizing and promoting mohanlal here[10] [2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohanlal&diff=630101394&oldid=630093324] please take proper actions aganist this.. thank you Bangbang43 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hammersoft, Re File:Everyone's on Pins & Needles.jpg on article Project Runway (season 3) 1) Did you determine that this image is not fair use? If so, how does it differ from the other promo image, File:pr3con.jpg? 2) Fair use aside, why is it "unnecessary" when compared to a pix of the third place model? Thanx from the low end of the learning curve, Denise B-K (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Denisebk[reply]

  • (1) I didn't. It was deleted from Commons as a fair use image is not allowed on Commons. (2) If it were uploaded here, and used as you suggested it should in this edit, then two fair use images would be used on the article. By WP:NFCC, it's preferred we use as little non-free content as possible. Both images are promotional images for the series. Only one image, the one present on the article, serves two purposes; that of depicting the cast and of showing identifying promotional material of the series. Thus, the existing image serves two purposes and the image you're wanting to use does not, making the existing image preferable to reduce the amount of non-free imagery on the article. Hope that helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK IM SORRY

IM SORRY--OpaqueVodville (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)OPAQUEVODVILLE[reply]

(talk page stalker) Are you also sorry for continuing to abuse multiple accounts? --Drm310 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I was doing some "housekeeping" (a.k.a. I was procrastinating) and came across:

The Slimy Sycophant Barnstar
To you Pdfpdf, I award the Slimy Sycophant Barnstar for exceptional flattery [11]. May the wearing of this barnstar permanently wrinkle your lapel! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall how well I expressed my appreciation at the time, so I'll explicitly state now: "I appreciated your response." Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW: I "chose" not to wear the award to my daughter's wedding - she was quite explicit about what I could must wear. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Talkback at Talk:Kim Jong-Un

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Talk:Kim Jong-Un.
Message added 23:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- F0064r (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-senetor?

Hi Hammersoft, I'm not sure if this is related to the edit warring that Wiki-senetor was involved in, but I saw this at AIV [12] and it looks like it was also slapped on MaterialScientist's talk page. I know that a lot of the problems were related to that Twenty:20 film. Also, this SPI might be of interest. Although I'm not familiar with the nuances of Wiki-senetor's behavior one of the editors who filed the SPI went into great detail explaining the behavioral patterns of the vandal, specifically which actor he favors, and which actor he dislikes: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mealwaysrockz007/Archive Lemme know if it helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And here I thought it was getting ugly with just the two sockmasters I identified (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harirajmohanhrm). I'm aware of another article where I suspect another sockpuppet has be warring. I'm working on building this all up. I just wish SPI moved faster. Seems constantly backlogged these days. If this goes back to early 2013 as you suggest, there's no fixing the behavioral problem. Both editors are absolutely fully aware what they are doing is wrong, and don't care. We have to use other tools then to quell the war. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say for certain that the SPI I pointed you to is either Wiki-senetor or the other guy, but it did seem worth mentioning. I happened to look at some of the edit summaries left at Twenty:20 and I noticed someone accusing their opponent of being a "fanboy". That phrasing (in the context of Bollywood film editing) sounded familiar to me, because I remember gnoming in an article where one dude kept accusing every reverting editor of being a fanboy of So-and-so, but I couldn't remember where the exchanges took place. I went back to Drishyam where I thought the exchange might've occurred, but I only found one guy using the word, and that led me to the SPI. I'll tell you this, Hammer: you find that mythical argument that I barely remember, and you'll solve this entire mystery! Lemme know if I can help at all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh :) Well, as time permits I'll start developing a case page if I find convincing evidence of connections to other accounts/IPs. I'll invite you to it. The downside for them is they can not avoid the articles on which they are warring if they want to continue the war. The digital trip wires are in place. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, I updated the sock report for the guy who is not Wiki-senetor. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harirajmohanhrm. He's the pro-Mammootty one. Mind-boggling that they're fighting over actors like people fighting over PC vs Mac or Packers vs Bears. And it appears that the newest user, Sonicbethesame orchestrated his return, by creating an account, editing a few disparate articles, and then continuing the edit war after he was autoconfirmed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey what you guys are telling??? removing official poster without proper reason. i want to know the reason and don't be in a fight with me and i don't know who is harirajmohan and mealwaysrockz. thank you Sonicbethesame (talk)

Hammer, this dude is worth an open eye or two. Seems pro-Mohanlal, and as we know from our primer, Harirajmohanhrm is pro-Mammoooty, Wiki-senetor is pro-Mohanlal. Relatively new account. Very odd that he would request AWB permissions this soon. Use of "fanboy" in this edit and this edit. Anyhow, enough for now. I don't know for sure that it's him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also noted that Jeremy Sallis is a new account that reported an IP at Harirajmohanhrm's SPI report. He is, coincidentally, retired now. I have a feeling these grown-ass, responsible, adults are going to start using throw-away accounts faster than we can block them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think there might be a new one: KatyCave. Some things that seem odd: in this edit the user reinstates some things I recently removed from the article, for instance they re-add "a totally different" in "Ramesh encounters a totally different Devan". That is oddly specific phrasing that was present before I removed it (obviously). They also add wikilinks I'd previously removed, and some other business. Not sure which of the problem editors it might be yet, but superficially I suspect Wiki-senetor ("a totally different Devan"). Anyhow, eyes open! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I was going to wait a little before doing it, but hey! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if Ponyo reverted the bulk of his edits or not, but what was left was relatively innocuous, and I only fixed his contributions where they were problematic. I noticed that UniGuard and KatyCave both set up with about 10 initial unrelated edits before getting into their agenda-specific editing, perhaps as a way of avoiding scrutiny. KatyCave started editing on the 15th and was blocked on the 19th. Let's see what happens with the next sock. Did they create the new account on the 19th, or before the 19th? If before, that suggests they're prepared for more disruptions. Not very telling, but it'll give us something to talk about next time. :P Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponyo didn't find any other socks, but both of the combatants in their edit war are dancing IPs so it might be tricky to track them down. Still, the pattern has been (at least for Wiki-senetor) to create an account after the latest sock is blocked. This means he likely created it within the last 12 hours. Just keep watching. Their achilles heal is they keep returning to the same subject area of films. They can't escape notice because of that. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if I told you that Wiki-senetor and Harirajmohanhrm were the same person? Would that blow your mind?! Yeah, mine too. Anyhow, it seems unlikely, although I think they both might be centered in Kerala. I think they should just meet in a parking lot and rumble over whether Mammootty is better than Mohanlal or not. I'd be happy to ship some chains and bats to Kerala. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • M'man, any idea who Variety styles of kerala is? That is, Wiki-senetor or Harirajmohanhrm? I think it might be Harijrajmohanhrm based on this edit where he tries to change the movie poster to a deleted file. I can't remember which one of them kept changing it to that file. He's restored an older version of the article. At some point I cleaned up the plot prose. One of Harirajmohanhrm markers I was looking for is the change of "When Ramesh finds out Devaraja was actually trying to kill the criminals who defiled his sister, he is full of remorse" to "When Ramesh finds out Devaraja was actually trying to kill the criminals who defiled his sister. finally ramesh turns to Ganesh and Mahindran" which I notice in the above edit and which was submitted by 117.221.186.241, a suspected Harirajmohanhrm IP. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

packing moving top servics

<<spam deleted>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goyal movers (talk • contribs)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery[reply]

A kitten for you!

Leave Now

JackMJ (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This editor User talk:Mulamoottil Adima, who you accuse of sock pupetting is now moving articles that I am working on without consensus. I am not well versed in moving or reversing moves, nor do I know the proper channels to report such behavior, but this must be stopped. One of the articles that he is threatening to move is one I currently have at FAC. Can you help, or find help for me? BollyJeff | talk 13:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has already reverted the moves, but I would still like to know how to handle someone acting alone like that. BollyJeff | talk 17:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with all such situations, attempt to communicate. If they fail to do so, revert them. If they revert you, and fail to communicate, you might try WP:AN/I. This particular guy is going to get blocked soon enough. But, he'll be back. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Changes

On the change on Paul Cézanne. I am 100% certain that he was addicted to porn at a young age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollgrief1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a message from you (or someone???) that disappeared???

Just curious, not furious...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a banana

And you shall pay! 2.103.197.76 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Ghana cedi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ghana cedi, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

A bit of a form letter from me to you (don't go poking around in my edit history or it'll get even more obvious how much of a form letter it is!) to wish you happy holidays, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy December, Happy Snow, Happy Sunshine, and an otherwise generally happy end to 2014. Thanks for all the constructive editing, support and civil discourse. Here's to another year of assuming good faith of one another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Hammersoft! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=640308555"