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 Hammersoft (talk | contribs) at 18:59, 4 January 2016 (→‎Infobox Ethnic image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Ping User:Salvidrim!

    Salvidrim!, in regards to these two diffs: [1], followed by [2].

    I appreciate you striking your earlier comment, but I wanted to raise issue with it. Please understand I'm not trying to pick a fight here, nor do I expect you to apologize further than you already have (and thank you for the apology that you've given). In fact, you don't even need to respond if you prefer. I wanted to share my view on your comments with you, to give you the opportunity to consider your actions in this case with regards to future interactions with others.

    It was not necessary for you to state "you don't understand the most basic notions of how discussions and consensus work". This is nothing short of a blatant violation of WP:NPA. Your statement could have just as easily been written "The fact that people are disagreeing with you shows that it is controversial", and it would have quite adequately conveyed the point. Please carefully consider what you're saying in the future, and do not attack people with your commentary.

    I wish you all the best, and thanks for your time. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution of non-free images

    Hey, Hammer. I've received an inquiry regarding the University of Florida seal on my talk page: User talk:Dirtlawyer1#Better resolution UF seal. As I understand it, we try to avoid using high-resolution versions of non-free images to avoid potential copyright infringement issues. Could you please chime in, and cite chapter and verse for the user making the inquiry (as well as my own edification)? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey DL. As you rightly stated some time ago, this sort of work is PD due to Florida state law. See Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments#Florida. So, it would seem to me the seal is PD by way of State of Florida statute. It may very well be PD by way of age; if that is the original seal, it would predate 1923, and thus be in PD by way of age. But, let's assume for the moment it isn't PD. I am guessing, but I would suspect the person posting on your talk page is referring to this image. There's not many images of the UF seal on the web, and this one in particular is 220x220 and is from their domain. I agree this image is better and should replace the image we are currently using for the seal. I don't see 220x220 being a problem. I think we tend to start edging into problematic territory when we get above 300px in any dimension, but it's not a hard rule and varies case to case. Lastly, I don't think the seal should be used in the infobox of University of Florida. The university's own branding makes strong use of the wordmark logo. See their identity site. Further, if you look at their main site at www.ufl.edu, there's no sign of the seal, but the wordmark is used. Also, the wordmark can not attract copyright, only trademark, as it is eligible for {{PD-text}}. We already have it here (though that seems a bit blurry too), and it should go to the top of the infobox. Since UFL uses the wordmark so extensively, far fewer people would recognize the seal than the wordmark. Hope that helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I made an argument about Florida state-owned art under very specific circumstances; if we've had a discussion about state-generated images being PD in Florida, I've forgotten it. I am aware, of course, of the Florida sunshine law that places all state-generated documents and images in the public domain, but I suspect the state seal (and university seal, of which it is derivative) might have a different status. Does the state (or the university) really want anyone freely using the state (or university) seal who isn't officially associated with the state (or university)?
    As for using the university seal in the article infobox, that's the only article of several dozen university-related topics where we use it, and we also use the UF wordmark there, too. As the official seal, that's the only appropriate place I would use it -- unless you think it should be moved to main body text. All other university-related articles (e.g., those about the university's constituent colleges and schools) use the wordmark exclusively, and the Florida Gators sports articles all use either the separate Gator head athletics logo or the "Gators" wordmark. I'm almost 100% certain that the Gator head logo remains a copyrighted, non-free image, and I've set up the NFCC rationales for each of the primary sports team articles, but we've been diligent in not permitting it to spread to seasons, bowl games, rivalries, etc., pursuant to a NFCC compromise from three or four years ago. Again, I'm pretty sure the sports logo is not PD, but that may be because it is held by the athletic association, which is a private, non-profit corporation -- legally separate from the university.
    Bottom line: you think it is reasonably safe to use the higher resolution image of the seal (albeit in a display format proportionate to the infobox) until someone tells us there is a specific exception for the seal under the Florida sunshine/PD laws? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The state can protect the use of the seal of the university via trademark protections. Yes, I would move the seal to somewhere within the article along with a description of some kind explaining the contents of it. It is an important emblem, but it's not the branding identity of the university now. I think uploading the larger image is fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shake, shake, shake! Shake Mammootty!

    Hey Hammer, so the 2 month protection at Twenty:20 (film) juuuuuuust got lifted, and lookit: this guy sneaks in and arbitrarily moves Mammootty to the front of the list. Can you believe it? They must've put the expiration on their Google calendar or something! Anyhow, on the off-chance that it is a coincidence, I'm going to hold off on another RPP. But if I see it again... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cyphoidbomb: He's baaack. User:Riskmadetosuccess in 100 days [3]. I've asked one of the admins that blocked socks in this case to block this new one. See User_talk:Materialscientist#Another_sock_of_an_abusive_editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever happened to cricket? When did rampant sockpuppetry become the national sport of India? One interesting thing, is that if the Indian press caught wind that there are legions of sockpuppets devoted to wiping Mohanlal out of existence, that would probably wind up making Mammootty look like a real asshole. The guy is probably doing more damage to his hero than helping him. I wonder if this guy Bashahikgt relpaces a disambiguation page with then entire Mammootty article. WTF? And how dare he taunt the Cluebot! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Missy Franklin, etc.

    Hey. I've proposed compromise language on the article talk page, and I am willing to also add an explanatory footnote to the sporting nationality parameter to the infobox to the effect "Franklin is a dual citizen of the United States and Canada who has chosen to represent the United States in international swimming competition." Or words to that effect of your choosing. The U.S. flag icon needs to stay, however. It is the symbol of her membership of the U.S. national team, and, yes, it is intended to call attention to that fact. I'm willing to discuss the duplicate flags in the infobox, but please recognize that not all Olympians are medalists, and we are trying to format all infoboxes consistently. And, frankly, I am also trying to preserve the status quo formatting until the contradictory MOS:ICON instructions are sorted out for members of national sports teams and other athletes in international competition. I expect that will finally happen some time this year; if someone else does not, I am prepared to file a comprehensive RfC for flag icon usage in sports bios and other international sports articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Honestly, the subject is of interest to me but at this point I don't _want_ to care anymore. I find the project wide disregard for global guidelines to be silly in the extreme. The gross misapplication of WP:INFOBOXFLAG in sports related articles is just one permutation of this. There is an extreme level of silo-ing going on, with sports related areas even further silo-ing. Policies and guidelines simply don't apply in these areas. If you try to apply, you get reverted and dragged through the mud. Occasionally, you even get the e-equivalent of being tarred and feathered. I'm sick of it. Yes, there are special cases where guidelines/policies might not have considered permutations of problems. But, to completely abrogate policy/guideline for an entire area of the project is flat wrong. A sport, any sport, is not a special case. It is a case that needs to be covered by the guideline. Less than 7% of his professional outings represented the United States. Yet if you dare remove the flag
    • Swimming isn't at all isolated in this. There are many sports that have divergent rules on this. Take golf. Tiger Woods' career includes more than 230 professional competitions. Only 15 of those are times he has represented the United States. Yet, if you dare remove the flag from his infobox, you will be instantly reverted. It doesn't make sense. Nationality DOES NOT mean what country you represent in sport. Readers coming to the article will wonder why there's no Swedish flag icon for Elin, no icon for Stanford, no flag icon for California, no flag icon for Florida...and well they should wonder. It's senseless.
    • In the specific case of Missy Franklin, and applying it more generally; to take any person who has dual citizenship and try to proclaim their nationality in the infobox as one or the other country only is fallacious, and can even be seen as grossly insulting to the person in question. If I had dual citizenship, I would be proud of being a citizen of both nations. To have my Wikipedia article not reflect that in the infobox would be grossly misleading, and demeaning to my status as a citizen of the nation not mentioned in the infobox. This must stop. It must. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hammer, buddy, don't get too worked up over this; I have generally defended project-wide guidelines, and I am working overtime to accommodate what I believe are your legitimate issues. But I also know the tainted history of how the present MOS:ICON language was adopted (LOCALCONSENSUS with zero notice to and no input from the affected parties), and I know every nuance of its self-contradictory language. It is a perfect example of how not to hold a project-wide discussion, with project wide implications, especially in the face of project-wide uses that flatly contradict the "guideline" as adopted. I can also point to recent MOS talk page discussions that clearly demonstrate there is no consensus to enforce the various contradictory provisions. But those are all arguments for another day, in another forum.
    Please rejoin the article talk page discussion, please review what I previously wrote above, and let's see if we can find a compromise we can live with, at least until MOS:ICON gets sorted. Thanks -- and remember we really are trying to work with you, and do your best to reciprocate. Compromise requires two sides to suck it up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, don't care. Or, at least, I don't want to care. It's just one article, and any 'compromise' is going to result in a hash that can't be applied elsewhere, and even if it were would potentially be construed as insulting to the people who have articles about them here. It's just not worth the headache. Thanks, I'll pass. It's off my watchlist, and will remain so permanently. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, Hammer. Hopefully, this [4] will resolve the issues you had with the Missy Franklin article, her dual nationality, and the use of the flag icon for her "sporting nationality." The infobox template has been changed to add a new parameter for "national_team" to clarify what was previously ambiguous; when the "national_team" parameter is invoked, the "nationality" parameter is excluded. "National_team" will be used for the overwhelming majority of notable swimmers who have represented their country in international competition as a member of their national team, i.e., in the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan Pacific Championships, Pan American Games, European Championships, etc. For the minority of notable swimmers who have never been a member of their national team, the infobox will continue to use the "nationality" parameter, and no flag icon will be used. The flag will be used exclusively in the "national_team" parameter. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a step in the right direction. Still offers a redundancy with whom they represent in the medal record section of the infobox where it says "Competitor for ..." Still, a redundancy is far, far better situation than a possible BLP insult. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hammer, once the new "national_team" parameter is discussed among other swimming editors, I propose to remove the redundant flag icons from the infobox medals table for almost all swimmers, with a limited exception for British swimmers who win medals while representing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth Games. Not every notable swimmer is a medalist, but the overwhelming majority are/were members of their national team, therefore it is logical to have the sole instance of flag icon in the infobox proper, rather than in the infobox's medals table, for the sake of consistent formatting of all swimmer infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, all 661 U.S. Olympic swimmer articles have been conformed to the infobox formatting described above -- one flag icon in the "national team" parameter for national team members, with no redundant links within the infobox -- and I've started chewing on the Aussies and Canadians. Cheers, Old Man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

    I've been following your commentary in this thread with interest, and agreeing with most of your critique and analysis. Your recitation of the chequered history of the guideline's adoption and subsequent amendments is spot-on. I'm not yet ready to toss the baby with the bathwater, but it is indeed a strange guideline that ostensibly permits these flags [5], but not this one [6]. I wish we could find a way to work together on this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I appreciate your sentiments. Though, I don't think there's anything to 'work' on per se. I think the middle ground is impossible on this one. Years of attempts to implement, modify and otherwise try to improve the guideline to support a middle ground has yielded nothing but failure. The current situation is untenable; the middle ground isn't going to work. There's just too many unusual situations and too many wikiprojects that want a say in their portion of the entire project to codify a middle ground that makes logical sense. The only logical conclusion to this is either removing the guideline (thus allowing flags to be used liberally, as they are on many articles already) or changing it to be absolute, prohibiting them entirely. Either end of that spectrum doesn't require 'work' really. The hard part, if there is work to be done, is to convince editors of the failure of the status quo and enable them to see there is no sense in supporting the middle ground anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion declined: User:Rolandselectric/sandbox

    Hello Hammersoft. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Rolandselectric/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ummm, right. An account with the name "Roldandselectric" writes a autobiographical article on their own company, complete with address and phone number and talking about how it is "one of the largest full service electrical contracting firms on Long Island" (in it's original version, when I tagged it) and this isn't promotional?? I'm curious, what WOULD count as promotional? The sole purpose the account was created (at least so far) was to get this article created. In the words of the person writing it, "The company name needs to be named". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm

    So, are you as good at finding free images for Wikipedia use as you are at sniffing out the ones that are non-free? I need a free-use image for a pending Good Article about Tim McKee, a 1984 Olympic gold medalist in swimming. Any suggestions, Hammer? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm a right knee biting jerk, so finding stuff to improve the encyclopedia as opposed to ripping out content isn't my thing. Just kidding, but that's what some people think :) I'll take a poke around. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey wait, I'll make you a deal...take that flappin' flag out of the infobox at Tim McKee and I'll see if I can find a free image of him :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick pass using various search ideas came up with nothing. I mean nothing...not even non-free. Maybe I'm not searching very well. Anyway, given that he works with non-profits, there's gotta be something out there, and maybe even the State of Florida might have something. Swim Across America might be willing to release a photo of him, though their flickr stream has all rights reserved. Worth contacting them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking, Hammer. McKee was a tough one -- early 1970s, and overshadowed by Mark Spitz's 7 gold medals and the Munich PLO attack. I'm going to re-check the University of Florida Digital Collection, most, if not all of which is deemed to be state property and therefore free use under the particulars of Florida state law. I'm also looking for photos for current Good Articles Catie Ball '68, Nicole Haislett '84 and Mary Wayte '84 and '88, and pending Good Articles Theresa Andrews '84, Duncan Armstrong '84, Mike Heath '84, David Larson '84, and Mark Stockwell '84. All were U.S. swimmers, Olympic medalists and Florida Gators -- except for Armstrong and Stockwell who are both Aussies. If we can't find anything else for these folks, I will contact SAA -- I would think they would find it in their best interests to have SAA photos included on Wikipedia GAs.
    FYI, it's been a long time since I considered you a "knee-biting jerk," and I do get what you're about more often than not. We all have a role to play, Hammer, and you play yours well. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If ever you called me such a disparaging term, I don't recall it. I didn't mean to imply that _you_ ever had, just that I used to get all sorts of insults of that kind from various people when I routinely did NFCC enforcement. I know we've been at loggerheads before, but I think we've always been civil to each other. I hope so anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    djokovic timeline

    Do you know how to find those logos as a content which is allowed to use? would be nice because I think it looked pretty good. I will delete them so that the blank white space isn't there anymore. Thanks in advance... --User:Wohlklang ND ps. I am new to wikipedia

    Talkback

    Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at GSK's talk page.
    Message added 23:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

    GSK (t • c) 23:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI

    Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#3O_needed_on_need_for_2_separate_NFCC_rationales --[User:Elvey|Elvey]] (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted image

    Hi Hammersoft, Can you please be a bit more specific as to why you have deleted Cahit Arf's photo in 1997 in Turkey ? This photo was upladed in 2011 and it is still in use in page Cahit Arf. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's located at User:Anomie/linkclassifier. It colours links dependent on what they are (Green for Redirects, yellow background for DAB, pink for nominated for deletion, as mentioned, red outline for fair use images, and some more). It is customizable (so you can say, turn off the redirect colouring for example). I quite like it, because it makes it easy to pick out self linking redirects, disambiguation pages, and fair use images. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    New/Old User

    Hello! I am a long time user of the Georgian Wikipedia. I had an account on English Wikipedia, but apparently I lost this account and now I register new account, but now I can't upload images. can you help me please? I need to write a little article today. My Georgian account is Gnome.Gghonghadze (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we "import" my account from Georgian wiki and do not wait for four days?Gghonghadze (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Day of the Sun

    As we all know, Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. However, in some cases the costs outweigh the benefits. I redlinked "Day of the Sun" because I think the topic (most important public holiday of the country; independent and reliable sources abound) is notable. That's why we create redlinks - to see what notable topics lack articles. Now that it was redirected back to "Kim Il-sung", we can no longer link it from there to avoid a self-redirecting wikilink. Since that article was one of the most prominent places to link it from, this certainly obscures the identification of notable topics that lack articles - the purpose of redlinks. I think the redirect is not warranted because "Day of the Sun" is not a synonym for "Kim Il-sung" (I don't think Fourth of July redirects to United States either). There isn't even a section in "Kim Il-sung" on "Day of the Sun" to redirect to. (see WP:POFRED: "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include[:] Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)") In fact, the only mention about the "Day of the Sun" in that article is where I put that redlink. (see WP:R#DELETE: "You might want to delete a redirect if[:] the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject."). The topics are only tangentially related - a perfect case for building the web by linking from one article to another, and redlinks are the way to start. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the Day of the Sun is 1/1000th as notable of Fourth of July, I'm sure there's plenty enough information out there to form a basic stub. As is, the previously redlinked location had just two inbound links to it. For contrast, Fourth of July has nearly 400 and Canada Day just over 400. Granted, en.wiki has an obvious western bias. If you want to turn it back into a redlink, feel free. I've no objection. But, given that is featured on "On this day..." on the main page, it seemed strange we should have a redlink on Kim Il-sung's page for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm one of those people who think that creating stubs just to be placeholders for actual articles in the future is not particularly useful - again, it defeats the purpose of redlinks to turn them blue at any cost. I agree that en.wiki has a huge bias on North Korea related articles. Having more redlinks could highlight this problem, raise awareness, and ultimately alleviate it. I agree that the main page link strikes as odd if there was an actual article on the "Day of the Sun" - I'm not familiar with main page policies as to say why they made a piped link like that to begin with. My intention wasn't to scold an editor who is obviously far more experienced than I am, but sometimes this redlink-vs-bluelink battle gets me, and I think redirects in particular could be used more sparingly. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly, it doesn't matter that much to me. I didn't take it as scolding. I don't look to see how long a person has been around or how many edits they have, and really don't think anyone is more or less experienced than anyone else here. Some of the best ideas come from the newest people. An idea, thought, or opinion is not weighted by a notional concept of 'experience'. Down that road lies ownership issues, trench issues, and the like. See also User:Hammersoft#Sudden_revelation for a humorous take on it. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI

    Hi Hammersoft, thanks for your message. I have read the COI guidelines and thought I was following them. Is there any action in particular that I've taken that causes you concern? Thanks. Alex at CreditSavvy (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not at all. I saw there was a high potential for conflict of interest, and that the routine warning available at {{uw-coi}} had not been placed on your talk page. So, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the instructions contained in that routine warning. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    who are you?

    who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big ding ding 099 (talk • contribs)

    Query from a journalist

    Hi Hammersoft, I'm a journalist with the New York Times. I'm working on a story about a U.S. national politician whose "people" appear to have been editing his/her page to delete negative but apparently-truthful (and sourced, etc.) information in 2012 and 2013. You reverted this edit and sent a message to the politician's associates warning them about unexplained removals. Could I ask you some questions about your experience as a Wikipedia editor and what you think about this situation? (Will go into more details in a non-public forum.)

    Wikipedia is not my natural environment; would you be willing to chat by phone or email? (Or IM, whatever's your preference.) I'm jeremy dot merrill at nytimes dot com on email (and jeremybmerrill on AIM and jeremybmerrill at jeremybmerrill dot com on XMPP/Jabber/GChat). My deadline is around Wednesday, 4/22, so I'd love to hear back from you soon. Jeremybmerrill (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey there

    Hey. I was just editing Oleg Shuplyak from Ukranian Wikipedia and translating it to English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diazabdulm (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Different types of employee

    Hi, you may be slightly confused about WMF employees and Wikimedia UK employees. Wikimedia UK is not run by the WMF and exists entirely as a legally separate entity (I was on the board when we were setting up the charity). Consequently WMF policies for employees do not apply to Wikimedia UK employees. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm quite aware, but thank you nonetheless. I've seen Foundation:Local chapters and what it says there. Personally, I don't think it matters. According to that page, "Local chapters are independent organizations that share the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation" If that be the case, and a goal of the WMF is not to generate public controversy with misuse of accounts, then it is a goal theoretically shared by chapters. More importantly, the public is not going to make a differentiation between the Foundation and its chapters. If a chapter employee has behaved in a way that contravenes standing Foundation policy, then a line has been crossed. The public may very vociferously excorciate them for this behavior. The Foundation attempting to disassociate themselves from the actions of a chapter and/or its employees may ring very hollow indeed, and have no appreciable effect on the disrepute that comes to them by way of chapters. More specifically to this project, ArbCom has a role in protecting this project from misdeeds by its editors. It is my opinion that a chapter or Foundation employee should never use any advanced user access levels, and should be stripped of such access levels when employed to remove any potential source of controversy. The only case where such access levels should be needed and used are in cases where the Foundation is applying policies. At a bare minimum, employees should be asking via noticeboards for administrator/checkuser/oversight action in any case where they believe such is needed rather than acting themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the general point and I agree with the principle, so would like employees to be seen to be highly cautious and conservative when using advanced rights. Legally, the way I understand it to work (speaking casually as a past Chapter Chairman) is that a Wikimedia chapter has to sign up to the chapters agreement. Among other things, this does ensure that the chapter does not bring the WMF into disrepute in order for it to continue to use the "Wikimedia" name. As a UK charity, the UK chapter already has legal requirements on it to effectively do this. Precisely how policies for employee conduct should work and how details such as declarations of interest must be published, is mostly left to the best judgement of the board of the charity. I think that is a good thing, but it would be useful if cases like this were used as a positive motivation to improve transparency and accountability for employee activities, especially those that blur the unpaid volunteer / paid volunteer / employee boundaries.
      As a regular example that has been discussed several times, we see WMF and local chapter employees writing from official Wikimedia email addresses, but they seem to believe it is okay to say what they like, so long as they put "this is a personal opinion" at the end of it. In a world where anyone can set up free email accounts, I see no harm at all in requiring that all email from official email addresses is official and nothing else. --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree. See the first paragraph of this opinion piece from me. It is my belief that once you become a paid employee, regardless if it is a chapter or the Foundation itself, you are voluntarily giving up certain privileges. Those, I think, should include editing any of the projects except in capacity as an employee. The attempted compromise position of trying to demarcate volunteer and paid time has failed. It will continue to fail, and the public frankly won't care that some line was established. Companies and governments have for a long time recognized that conduct of its employees outside of paid time is directly connected to them and have put policies in place to address this. As a case example, look at all the sports figures whose behavior outside of their sport has resulted in them being suspended or banned from their sport. That the WMF refuses to address this in a professional manner shows gross incompetence on their part. Case example of this is their policies page and Code of conduct policy have not been updated in any respect to demarcate the line, if it even exists. Thus, even their failed compromise position hasn't been codified...yet they expect everything to be just fine. This is, to say the least, shocking. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you

    I had not seen (I probably should have made an effort to find!) Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration, thank you for pointing me in that direction. Regarding your comment about editors making posts with the sole purpose of discrediting other editors - it is a lot easier to be sanguine about it when it isn't happening to you! Thanks again. Hobson (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Hobson: No worries. About discrediting; mainly concerned here that this case is about the case, not about other editors. The case is important enough on its own. It might be useful to request a third opinion on Black Kite or other avenues for dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

    You were 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/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A.T Still University

    I'm currently working on how to correctly edit the content on the A.T. Still University page to not have the page be flagged as an advertisement. I would greatly appreciate any help regarding this issue, specifically what content we need to delete in order to remove the flag. I have tried multiple times to edit the content and remove content that I feel is written as an advertisement and it shortly after is deleted or changed back to the original content.

    As an advertising agency on behalf of ATSU we want the page to contain only true facts regarding the University and it's entities. Wikipedia and ourselves both want the same result, I would just appreciate your help in getting to that point. Thank you in advance. LauraSchmitz20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraSchmitz20 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration Case

    The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You were recently listed as a party to 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/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Hammersoft - I left some remarks on this subject. Have a nice day! Gerd--Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NFCR

    Hello Hammersoft, thanks for helping with WP:NFCR. When you close NFCR-discussions, please "subst:" both closing templates. Transcluded closed sections won't get archived by ClueBot with the current configuration. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for helping out and making closes for the discussions. Please, however, remember that this is a discussion board and unless there is need for immediate action, or the situation is 100% obvious, we usually wait at least a full week before closing, especially when there is discussion in the past few days. Also, remember to be careful about closing discussions that you participate in. I know you've been doing these types of things for a long time, so I'm not truly worried, but I don't want you to end up in a situation that will turn you away from the board. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Being told to back off will turn me away from the board :) Seriously, this is just housekeeping work and it's non-controversial. If I think something needs to be left open, I do. If it's obvious a close would be non-controversial (or at least shouldn't be under policy), I close it. Witness closes I made today:
    What I find distressing about this board is the obvious lack of attention it gets from those interested in housekeeping it. 114 threads? Really? "Open" discussions dating back to last year? Really? If you want to remove problems from the board, I think you'd be better served by addressing the actual problems, not me...who is doing some (I think) good work here :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Hi, Hammersoft. Whether you like it or not, you've always been my go to person for questions regarding images! Do you think the fair use policy would allow me to use the top image in this article in Bernard Darke? - Location (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Go away! Just kidding :) Yes, as an image that immediately precedes his death, showing him attempting to flee his assailants I think it amply qualifies. Just ensure the image description page and the caption of the photo when in use, both adequately describes what is taking place. At first view of the image, I was not able to understand the significance of the photograph. After reading the description, oh yeah. This is a potent image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reichstag and Red Flag

    That's me, second from left in the first row. (Kinda short for a stormtrooper -- must have been a legacy.)

    Do you think that the Red Army Flag famous picture belongs to this article? Any idea where to find a foto and use it in the article without copyright problems? Vagr7 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Vagr7: No, it doesn't belong, and no there is no photograph of that moment in history that is free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hammersoft: I think you are heavily biased. Are you a German, nazist or something? Then you should avoid editing these type of articles, you are afraid to face history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagr7 (talk • contribs)
        • @Vagr7: First, you don't need to use ping to ping me to my own talk page. The message notification system already does that for you when you place messages on my talk page. Second, hahahahahaha! No, sorry (wiping tears from eyes) I'm not German or a Nazist. You should really pay attention to WP:NPA. Third, afraid to face history? Uh, no. Considering I have literally hundreds of books on history in my personal library, umm, no. Here's reality; WP:NFC#UUI #6 states that you should not use "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" Since File:Reichstag flag original.jpg has an article dedicated to it at Raising a flag over the Reichstag, using it elsewhere is against policy. I've already pointed this out to you before. Apparently this has not been understood by you. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have to help you understand this point in policy. Please feel free to ask me here. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammer, is this the first time you've been called a Nazi? I mean a real, live, goose-stepping Nazi -- not just a sometimes copyvio nazi? (Not, of course, to be confused with the "Soup Nazi.") Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did a year of law school in Britain on an exchange program for American law students. The program was designed with concentrated three-day class weeks and long breaks between terms so we could travel during the year. One of the weirdest and most surprising things I saw in Europe was re-runs of Hogan's Heroes dubbed into German while we were in Vienna. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always, Hammer. And I wish we could keep our talk page discussion on a more friendly and less adversarial basis elsewhere. Very few things in life are "life and death matters," and darn few should be approached as such. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Hammer, you're not a Nazi. Sometimes you are over-zealous, IMO, but that does not make you a Nazi, nor anything less than a concerned editor in good standing. Attempts to being some levity to heated discussions are always appreciated by me (if not all others), because I see good-natured humor in such circumstances as an attempt at signalling "we may disagree here, but we are not enemies, and we may work together tomorrow on another topic." So, fight on, Battlebot. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh let's be clear; you're not my enemy, but I am your enemy. ;) Joking aside, no one is my enemy here just as no one is my friend here. I find it very liberating to approach the project in this manner. I don't care who's toes I step on, do not care who I annoy, and have nothing to follow but policy and guideline. People don't like it, tough. I'm not here to please anyone, and I'm not here to piss anyone off either. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Liefting

    You can hysterically claim "the actions of the community here towards Alan have been most reprehensible" as is your right to an opinion, but you and I and Alan know that Alan has a choice of thousands of areas of Wikipedia to which he could contribute. Instead he 100% deliberately editing against his topic ban. That is stupid at best. I'm afraid your defence of his actions and your "outrage" at his block is something we've all heard far too many times before. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And that is why neither Alan nor your pandering to him will ever gain traction. Your deliberate ignorance of his profligate and obvious attempts to goad the community is highly enlightening. Thank you too, and goodbye for some time, with luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not going to engage you on this. Since I've said that multiple times now, to no effect, let me be crystal clear about this: STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE. To be even more clear; that means do NOT click "edit this page" at the top of this page, do NOT click "edit" next to any section header, and do NOT enter alt-shift-e. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Flags and swimmers

    Hey, Hammer. Your efforts have not exactly been fruitless. As a result of previous discussions with you, practices were changed regarding the use of flag icons by WP:SWIMMING, a "national team" parameter was added and the instructions for Infobox swimmer were changed, and over 1400 American, Australian and Canadian Olympic swimmer articles have been edited to create a new consistent standard for the use of a single flag icon for Olympic swimmers who have represented their country in international competition. There's still a lot of work to be done: there are still 2700+ remaining swimmer articles need to be brought into compliance with the new standard -- a standard that is fully compliant with the current version of MOS:FLAG. In addition, redundant flags have been stripped from the succession boxes of most world record-holders (over use), and the locations of most swimming championships (inappropriate geographic use). I believe in the appropriate, but limited use of flags in a sporting context, and I would love to have your help in the subject area to further implement MOS:FLAG compliance. You won't be reverted and no one will say mean things to you. Promise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Related; have a look at this discussion (and if it's archived before you read it, hard link).
    • To the point; it pleases me that these changes were made, and I applaud you for taking point to fix the overarching problem in a way that makes logical sense. I'm not worried about being reverted or having mean things said of or to me. Lots of people say mean things to me; editors, admins, bureaucrats, even an arbcom member once. It's de rigueur here. WP:NPA is a meaningless policy. But, I digress... I think I'll pass on working through the 2700+. I'm glad to have made some contribution to the effort, even if I traipsed into the land of harshness in the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, Hammer, I saw the ANI and related MOS discussion; that's what prompted my comment here. As I have repeatedly said, I am an advocate for the appropriate, but limited use of flag icons for international sports -- not American college sports, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. Now that the issue of a single flag in the infobox of Olympic athletes and others in international competition seems to have finally been resolved, I would like to see the other permitted uses better defined, and yes, overuse and abuse curtailed. When I see flags for airplane crash victims, dinosaur fossil locations, and NCAA tournament venues, it tells me that someone just doesn't get it. Of course, the most aggressive use of flags, as far as I have seen, is the grotesque overuse of icons in football/soccer articles; ironically, they don't use flags in player infoboxes, but insert them pretty much everywhere else. When I see 50 to 150 flags in a single article, especially when the flags are used for the same person or team multiple times, it tells me they just don't get it.
    FYI, the WP:Tennis guys are stripping the flags from all tournament locations. They still use them too much, but it's progress. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Endearing commentary

    fuck off cunt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.192.49 (talk • contribs)

    Arbitration case opening

    You 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/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You've got mail from Technical 13!

    Hello, Hammersoft. Please check your email; you've got mail!
    Message added 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

    — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    read

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.187.192.49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.144.191.252

    If you don't ban the user above who made threats to Jeb Bush for more than 2 months,I will hack into your account and ban him myself. He should be off wikipedia for months and i will hack into your account to ban him. No way someone who made threats should be allowed to get back on wikipedia in '31 hours'.

    Ban him or i will get another administrator or myself to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiusmaximus (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry your most recent visit to Wikipedia lasted only five minutes. Perhaps it did not give you time to understand that I am not an administrator and have no ability to ban an account. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You get the most interesting talk page visitors, Hammersoft.
    I was looking at your log page, it is most impressive. I wish I had kept track of my much more modest stats. I have less activity than you but it would now be a lot of work to put a list like that together. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why thank you! I put it together for defensive reasons some years ago due to observed behaviors. I'd seen people attacking others for supposedly not contributing to the project. I wanted to have something to refer to the next time somebody made that accusation against me (and it's happened before). Ironically, nobody has since I generated it. I maintain it now out of habit. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Davies

    I was just following instructions. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirlo's Spoon (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NFCC#10c?

    I saw a minor edit war involving WP:NFCC#10c in the revision history of Assassination of Fred Hampton. It appears as though there are a couple photos that are also used in Fred Hampton. Would you mind taking a look when you have a few minutes? - Location (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the above, I am thinking about boldly redirecting Assassination of Fred Hampton back to Fred Hampton and reiterating the following points on Talk:Fred Hampton: 1) the article was forked without discussion, 2) the article and the fork state that Hampton was assassinated when the official findings never stated that, and 3) the WP:NFC issues need to be resolved if there is a fork. I'm wondering if you think that is OK for now, or if you have other suggestions. Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I've no problem with something being forked without discussion, as sometimes it just makes sense to do so [9][10]. So, I don't think undoing the fork because no discussion occurred is valid. That said, while this person is notable in their own right even if they'd not been killed (whatever term we use to describe that), I doubt we'd have an article on him if he hadn't been killed in such a manner. To me, that's a stronger (though not necessarily strong) argument for merging them back together. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No process. Noting NFCC#10c in the edit summary would be a good idea. Remember, WP:IAR. If you are working for the benefit of the project, and something you want to do is unquestionably the right thing, don't let bureaucracy stand in your way. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rationale for the COINTELPRO article is invalid, because the image is already hosted at Fred Hampton. COINTELPRO can link to Fred Hampton, but reusing the photo for that article is probably a miss. I do not say that is a 100% rock solid case though. But, have a read of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6. Also, the rationale's assertion of it being an assassination would have to be supported by cites. Regardless, I think removing the image from COINTELPRO is the right direction to take, and subsequent to that, removing the rationale for that article from the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination of Richard Matt for deletion

    A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Matt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

    The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Matt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

    Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi,you said at ANI that I was making edit-warring at the "Albanians" article.It's OK.Why don't you go and see what happened at that article ,please?SilentResident deleted informations that have been there since a long time (those informations aren't added by me ) without concensus.Then he said at ANI that he deleted my POV (while those informations weren't added by me).His words may send me to a block. I agree with some of his edits ,but I don't agree with the fact that he deleted the referenced figures that said that there are 5 mln albanians in Turkey without concensus.They have been there since a long time and SilentResident needs concensus to delete them,especially when they are referenced. So ,can you please delete his edits about the number of Albanians in Turkey?I can't go at that article and make edits,as I may be blocked . Also go and see what SilentResident did at Albanians.Milliyet says that 500 thousand have consciousness of their Albanian origin while there are 1.3 mln albanians in turkey.SilentResident put the number of albanians in Turket at 500000 (as the lowest estimate).Rolandi+ (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolandi+, feel free to report me and the others for Vandalism, for POV or ANI or whatever you want. I have already reported your behavior to the Administrator NoticeBoard, where I raised the issue of your blackmailing attempts against me in the Talk:Albanians. Mr. Hammersoft can check the Talk page of Albanians, my own Talkpage, as well as Future Perfect's Talk page for the full image the events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Unsourced_POV_edits_on_population_figures --SilentResident (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, your accusations, dear Rolandi+, against me and the other people in Wikipedia, won't go unnoticed. And your blackmailing attempts should also be brought to Hammersoft's attention:
    Dear Hammersoft, the user Rolandi+ tried to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, where he threatened me twice:
    "So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI"
    and
    "I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey"
    If I didn't misunderstood, isn't this a warning or threat, mr. Hammersoft? Isn't Rolandi+ warning me that if I don't comply to his bidding and do not undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported? Isn't that a blackmail? How should I respond to Rolandi+'s blackmails? What is the appropriate action for such cases in Wikipedia? Thank you for your time, dear Hammersoft, and I am really sad for Rolandi+'s immature behavior and negative attitude against the other users. Furthermore, in the Administrator's noticeboard, although I initially chose to stay neutral in the question to ban or to not ban Rolandi+, I ended up now voicing my support for his ban, because this went too far. I apologize, dear Hammersoft for any disruption of peace, this was not my intention. I hope you have a good day. --SilentResident (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I reported the edit warring to WP:AN/I only because I have Albanians on my watchlist for WP:NFCC violations. I have no particular interest in the debate the two of you find yourselves in, nor do I care to get embroiled in it. My talk page isn't the place to hash this out. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mammootty again?

    Hey Hammer, I spotted a really weird change related to that whole Mammootty vs Mohanlal socking that was going on a while ago. This guy, a user with less than 2 months of edit history, moved Category:Mammootty - Mohanlal combination films to Category:Mohanlal - Mammootty combination films. At best, this seems totally arbitrary and pointless. At worst, we've got another sock. I'm likely going to revert on general principle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aw poop. I can't move it back, I think because there's a redirect in place. Can ye help? I'm going to open a sock report for kicks. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing that out. I don't make a habit of checking the other projects, (it's more work) but I probably should. What are your thoughts on moving the category back where it was? Should we wait for the SPI to conclude? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issue resolved. That was a long-shot, but confirmed. Nice. I can't undo the category move because a redirect page is in the way and the software isn't allowing it. Pending my second RfA, I am not helpful here yet, so I must impose upon you. Also, do we need to contact someone to change back the Wikidata move? That only seems right... Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've not demoted myself to administrator, so you'll have to find someone else to schlep for you :) I'm glad they confirmed. It was a bit of a stretch, and some checkusers might have denied it as a fishing expedition. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @@Cyphoidbomb: A HA! You started this thread not long before your RfA went live. It is obvious your intent! You were canvassing for votes! Very subtle, and you almost got away with it! ;) Well, anyone idiotic enough to run for RfA should not be trusted with the administrator tools, as they are obviously seriously lacking in judgment. I guess on the plus side you'll have a shiny new hammer to play whack-a-mole on the Mammootty/Mohanial business. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, this is really embarrassing, but I assumed you were an admin! How did that happen?! Perhaps your noble demeanor. :) Sorry for pestering you to fix something that you couldn't fix. I appreciate your words of support at the RfA. No canvassing was intended! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of my first admin accomplishments, I moved Category:Mohanlal - Mammootty combination films back to Category:Mammootty - Mohanlal combination films. Shwing! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert

    Sorry about reverting your revert to Jacob Barnett‎ — I intended to undo the IP's vandalism, not your cleanup of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Membership has its privileges

    there is no handshake, but there is a tune you need to hum

    Is it a five-tone musical phrase in a major scale?[13] Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from User:Kissmyfac

    @Kissmyfac: Yo what i did was writing the truth , if you're not sure what you just read please search google --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kissmyfac (talk • contribs)

    ANI notice signature

    Hello Hammersoft, as you reminded me that I didn't sign the ANI notice, I went back and added it. I hope you find this satisfactory. JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NFCC

    Hello Hammersoft, closing NFCC-threads please make sure to "subst:" both archive templates (see instructions on top of the WP:NFCC page). The bot won't archive closed discussions with only transcluded archive templates. No biggie, just thought I drop you a quick note :). Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guilty…

    …of the Styx song so turning myself in as requested. -- Avi (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talkback

    Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
    Message added 05:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

    Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Enjoying your metaphors

    Thanks for the smiles!

    + + =

    -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

    You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You 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/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Re:Just dropping by

    Hi Hammer, it is always nice to hear from you. I am doing fine for now. How about you? I imagine that the people of Puerto Rico are brazing themselves for the hurricane. My family and I survived "Hugo", therefore we know what it is like, however we now live in Arizona and the only thing that we have to deal with is the heat and sandstorms. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Check, please!

    Hammer, can you exercise your usual due diligence regarding this photo: [14]? It appears to be a head-and-shoulders portrait taken for a team website, and therefore it raises possible copyvio issues. I have no idea who the uploading editors is, but I supposed he could be the photographer. If he is the photographer, at a minimum I believe some additional explanation from the uploader is required. If otherwise . . . well, you know what tot do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kat Williamson photo

    Would you mind changing the photo back to her roster picture? This photo is very unflattering and I've been trying to change it for the past week. Jking1707 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry but yes, I would mind. It's a copyright violation of [15]. We can't just take images we find somewhere on the Internet, claim they're ours, and upload them here under a free license. This is a violation of the rights holder's claim on the work. I have marked the image for deletion on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you again

    You posted a nice message on my user talk a few months back, and I know I thanked you at the time, but I just want to thank you again. Although I didn't doubt what you wrote, I can say I have a greater appreciation for it now after some of the things I've experienced, especially over the past couple of days, since that time. FWIW, I don't pretend to know it all, so if you catch me barking up the wrong tree or really making a muck of things, please feel free to correct me and point out where I went off track. I have no problem with constructive criticism or admitting when I am wrong. One thing I have noticed is that there does seem to a big disagreement on how the NFC is to be applied or whether it should be applied at all. Since you've been at this much longer than me, I am curious if you have any opinion as to why community guidelines/policies such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, etc. are pretty much accepted by most editors and Wikiprojects without too much questioning, but non-free content usage seems to be a real hotbed for disagreement. Is there something with the wording of the NFC that makes it difficult to understand? Would it be better to provide more specific examples as to what content can or cannot be used? Is the NFC in its current form too strict to be practical? Does it need to be reaasessed more regularly to keep up with how non-free content is actually being used? It seems to me that the NFC should be a important point of concern for the Wikimedia Foundation because it does involve copyrighted content, so its kind of surprising that there is so much left open to interpretation. Anyway, what started out as just a simple"thank you" has turned into a medium-high wall of text, so I think I'll stop now. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's been plenty of discussion on making WP:NFC have more examples. As with any NFC related issues, it's highly controversial. Everything about NFC is controversial. Part of it descends from deleting work of other people. But, that's not all of it. An interesting social study could be done about the subject, I'm sure. As for reassessing...that will not happen. The Foundation has a strong stance against non-free content that offers no quarter for relaxation of the standards. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand. Maybe "reaffirming" would have been a better choice of words than "reassessing". Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my post and reply. Peace. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of non-free content, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. "This policy ... may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored". I mean to make no joke other than to note that those who would dramatically increase the amount of non-free content on this project (which quantity is already beyond imaginable in sheer scale) would have many view those who defend NFC as religious zealots. And there lies the divide. Betwixt the two there is no middle ground, no table at which to talk, no peace offerings worthy of the name. Either you believe one side or the other. Those who would demonize me personally say that such a belief attests to why my actions generate controversy at times. Yet, I speak the truth. The truth is never so painful as when it sets most in relief that which is most objectionable. And, NFC is most objectionable to many...whether it be NFC policy or NFC media. If this has become too sophist to digest, then allow us to drink from the well of despair a mere drop of sobering reality; Tarlac#Administrative contains seals by community in this table, directly in contravention of WP:NFTABLE. It is not surprising to find such an abuse of non-free content. Sadly, it is not surprising to find that this abuse has been extant for six months. Nobody cares anymore. The Foundation policy has been overruled by the relentless onslaught of editors who simply don't care what the Foundation says on the matter. It is a coup de wikipedia, brought on by a greater mass of those who care not for the free content mission than there are those who do care, and a Foundation that is utterly unwilling to act, though many times prompted, even plead with. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say the "Tarlac" is a pretty obvious NFC violation, as obvious as I've come across in recent times. I also have no doubt if I were to remove the inappropriate images per NFG or NFLISTS, that there's a good chance they will be quickly re-added because someone thinks I don't think understand the rules or because the article absolutely must have the images without exception. I think there is a misconception by quite a few editors (even some administrators perhaps) that anyone one dares to remove an image from an article (that guideline or policy wise shouldn't be there in the first place) is only interested in deleting things for "amusement" and really doesn't "understand" how things work. Maybe this touches more of a nerve when it comes to non-free images because it becomes an orphan once removed and is subject to speedy deletion, even though I think technically even a non-free image deleted in error can be restored after the fact. In a recent NFCR discussion it was suggested that it would be best to leave things like this for the image and policy people to resolve. This is fine with me, but NFCR is supposed to be the place for discussing things NFC usage and I assumed (incorrectly perhaps) that it was the image and policy people who created WP:NFC, WP:LOGO, and WP:IUP in the first place. So, it seems to me that the "experts" have already spoken and yet they are still being ignored by many. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note, with dark humor, that after you attempted to remove the images from the Tarc page, they were restored a little over six hours later [16]. I took them out again, this time removing the column entirely. Of course, I was reverted too, so I reverted and left a message for the user. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured they would be readded by someone. The accounts of the IP editor and the other editor who reverted are each about a month old, so it is the possible they are not aware of the NFC. Of course, when someone's account was created does not always indicate the time they really started editing Wikipedia or their familairity with it. Since no edit sums were given with the reverts, I have no idea why they feel the images belong so it just seems to be a snap response to something being removed from "their" article. I think some new editors just naturally assume that "Wikiepdia can be edited by anyone" means anything they like can be added and anything they don't like can be removed without at least trying to use a policy or guideline to explain why. I did, however, leave a post explaining why I removed the images on the article's talk page and referred to it my edit sum. (BTW, the last time I tired that approach was after removing an old radio station logo, it was re-added and I was told a consensus existed for using such logos and was also "asked" not quote rules to more experienced users.) Anyway, now that you have left that user talk page post, maybe the other editor will read my talk page post and attempt to discuss things and explain why they think the images should be used. Sometimes knowing why an editor wants to use an image makes it eaiser to explain why they shouldn't or makes it easier to find a way to possibly use the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you would like another sip from the well of despair; User:SlimVirgin/draft contains File:Invisalign software user interface.png, clearly marked as non-free. WP:NFCC #9 contains a clear prohibition on the use of non-free images outside of article space. The draft creator has been part of Wikipedia for 11 years, an administrator for 10 years, with nearly 150,000 edits. I don't mean to highlight the draft author in particular, but just as a case point; how is it we can have a system where such a case could exist? There's so many things wrong with this it's hard to begin. How can such an experienced editor make such a mistake? How can the system allow such a mistake to happen? How can our processes allow this violation to exist for a week without anyone doing anything about it? I can go on for a while here. It is not as if the editor doesn't know the policy. Over the last five years, the editor's made over 100 edits to non-free content policy discussion areas. If we can not reasonably expect such an experienced editor to adhere to the rules, how can we expect the overwhelming mass of inexperienced editors to hold to it? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be a fairly recent draft that looks like it's going to be added to the article space quite soon without going through AfC. It's possible that the NFCC#9 thing was just a simple oversight, but I can't say for sure. Whether the image should be used at all is a different matter, but it's hard to imagine that the person you have described above knowingly and purposely not complying with NFCC#9. Maybe a user talk page message will clear things up? As for the system not allowing it, I admit that is something I find concerning. I am not too technically savy, but I am wondering if there is a way to "mark" non-free content so that it is flagged somewhere when it is being used in the userspace. I see bots do all kinds of clean up for other problems, including some image related problems. Would it be possible for a bot to be designed to remove non-free stuff from the userspace per NFCC#9? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel there's a need to contact the author of the draft. Such violations are very commonplace anyway. I really just wanted to point it out as a case example of how experienced editors can and do violate WP:NFCC. Is it possible to block NFCC from appearing outside of articles? Yes, it is. A constant argument against that has been that people will therefore upload things that are non-free and mark them as free so they can work with them outside of mainspace. I.e., a game of whack-a-mole where you haven't really solved a problem, you've just pushed it elsewhere. I once argued for having an exemption from NFCC for draft/sandbox articles that were less than a month old. Failed. There was a bot that used to remove non-free images from things outside of mainspace. It doesn't run anymore. I don't recall why. That speaks to another problem; bots. Our bots are not developed and operated by the Foundation, but by well meaning editors. If they leave, their toys go with them too. Imagine ClueBot, which handles an enormous amount of vandalism, disappearing. Imagine all of these bots disappearing. EVERYbody will leave the project. It's not a question of if, but when. All of these bots WILL disappear. Will something come in their place? Questionable. The foundation that Wikipedia is built upon is exceptionally weak. It's only been able to sustain because of the very large body of editors it has enjoyed. But, the body of editors (minus a recent blip...even a dead cat bounces) is declining. The Foundation's response to this problem demonstrates abject stupidity. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know that about bots. I thought they were like anything else added to Wikipedia: free for all to use and modify as they see fit and pretty much there forever in one way or another. I didn't assume they were owned an operated by the WMF, but I didn't realize you could just take it with you when you leave. Now that you mention it, I think that it might be a good idea if the WMF had some official bots up and running. Sometimes I think one problem with Wikipedia is that it's a little "too unofficial" if that makes any sense. There are policies and guidelines for pretty much everything for sure, but these can be ignored and are even sometimes encouraged to be ignored. It might be better to have a little more formal "official" oversight in certain key areas, but maybe the project is too far along now for that to happen. Or, maybe it's already in place and I've just been fortunate to have not drawn its attention up until now (knock wood). IMO, there are always going to be people who try to game the system regarding anything to do with Wikipedia. Certain people are always going to try to find a way to get their way, even if that means blurring a few lines along the way. Maybe it would just be better to try and find ways to help prevent mistakes by more "casual NFC users". I think many editors just do not know about the NFC. They see what's done in some other article and just figure it's OK for them to do as well. Many of the problematic nfurs I have seen just seemed to copy and pasted, without much thought, from one article to another (sometimes without changing any text). Maybe an "Images" mission should be added to WP:TWA which explains NFC and IUP so that at least those who take the adventure are exposed to the relevant policy from the start. Not sure if something like that would work, but it might help prevent a few nfc violations down the road. BTW, I saw your post about the Barcelona crest. I think it fair to say that sports logos (especially national team logos) can easily be added to curreny images and broadcast logos as nfc content that many editors and Wikiprojects consider to be exceptions to the NFC. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Years ago, there was an absolutely enormous argument over the use of sports logos on various articles. I can not overstate the breadth and depth of the debate. To this day, I cringe at the thought of that debate. I've largely stayed out of that fray since. Honestly, I was shocked when WP:NFC was modified to include WP:NFC#UUI #17. The debate I refer to would never have permitted that to be added. Nevertheless, we end up with things like (see the uses of:) File:Made in chelsea logo.png, File:MemphisTigers.svg and File:Church and General National Leagues.gif (and yeah, I'm once again just scratching at the surface). To other points; Wikipedia is an amorphous blob. It is never static and continues to change shape, size and color. Human beings, by genetics, attempt to find order in chaos. Chaos is unsettling to humans. We need order in order to understand our environment. Thus, Wikipedia is effectively forced to constantly be victimized by internal controversy. That is has succeeded at all is a testament to the beauty of homo sapiens. That out of such strife we can create something that is at least somewhat good is a wonderful testament to us as a species. Nevertheless, it bodes very ill for the future of Wikipedia. Without systems and structures in place to see to its enduring legacy, it will fail. It already is failing. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think No. 17 is probably something that should be discussed in more detail by the community and I tried at No. 17 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Clarification requested regarding UUI#17, but it was archived not too long after with really nothing resolved at all. My argument in that thread may turn out to be wrong, which is why I was hoping for a discussion on No. 17 by the community to decide if it is really needed and if it is, then how it should be applied in such cases.

    I also opened a discussion about "Made in Chelsea" at NFCR. It seems that there is a chance that this could be PD-USonly, but I'm not sure about the crown. If not then, I would suggest removing the image from the article lacking a nfur. I removed the Memphis logos from the individual season articles per NFCC#10c since that seem straightforward enough. The other uses have a nfur and whether they are valid is a separate discussion. I did the same for the Church image, only removing it from the articles lacking the nfur. If you think removing any of the aforementioned images was a mistake, please revert. My feeling, however, is if someone wants to use them, then they should at least provide the nfur since they best know why they feel they think the image should be used. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • As is probably clear from our above discussion, but engagement level on these issues is at the "meh" stage. I occasionally do some NFCC enforcement work, but I just kinda pick at it like an old scab that refuses to go away. It used to be I'd do hundreds if not thousands of edits a month in support of NFCC enforcement. At this point, I think the inclusion of non-free content on the project under the current paradigm is untenable and has utterly failed. I said many years ago that the middle position we take would be a failure, and it has been. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence

    Hi Hammersoft, at the direction of a drafting arbitrator, I've removed your evidence at the Palestine-Israel articles 3 case. This is not in any way an indication or accusation of misconduct, but for the future, "[e]vidence must focus on current problems observed while editing in the area and suggestions as to how a change in sanctions might improve editing here". See also the authorizing motion. As a clerk, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • NPA is an issue, as is fairness. The offending retired admin can return whenever they please, the "offending" User is still indefinitely blocked, with no proven misconduct (as yet). Note that at least three admins have said that they have no issues with the user being unblocked, they just don't want to do it themselves. Why the demurral and failure to assume good faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.26 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thoughtonomy Wiki Site

    Thanks for your help earlier today. Our clients have asked a Wiki page, but we'll direct them to our LinkedIn page and invest our time and money there, we don't have the time for wiki at the mo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suthera (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Catholic bishops of the United States

    You deleted some Coat of Arms files from the "List of Catholic bishops of the United States" page. What do I have to do in order to get them back on the page? Roberto221 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • So why weren't the other Coats of Arms deleted? Do they have to be uploaded via WikiCommons instead of Wikipedia? Can I amend the images I uploaded? Roberto221 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other images are available under a free license, or at least listed as so. I doubt most of them are actually free. That said, the ones that were non-free can't be made free simply by uploading them to Commons. If that happens, they will get deleted from Commons. They have to be available under a free license or public domain, and that means that rights holders have to give up rights, or the rights have to expire. There's no easy way through this. We have to comply with copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Its me jaydipmodhwadia52

    I wanted to say thank you for giving me a warm welcome into the wikipedia community! I hope we remain friends! Your cookie monster friend, jaydipmodhwadia52 Jaydipmodhwadia52 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Lewandowski

    Looks like it's time to block him. I'm not an admin. Can you do it?--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    QUESTION

    Sir, I understood the deletion of free images of G. M. Durrani.

    But lyrics of some patriotic/religious songs and tracks of this legendary personality are most important for general public.

    So I request you to undo delete these songs lyrics.

    With king regards.

    (Kchatfb 15:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

    • We are not a repository of lyrics. We do not include the collected lyrics of composers/singers on this project. Sorry. Also, I didn't remove any free images, only non-free ones. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Curiosity

    I liked the comment you made at WT:RFA, thought I'd check out your user page, saw the QR code, and here I am. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

    Hi Hammersoft. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))[reply]

    A cup of tea for you!

    With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Logo help

    Hammersoft, I know you're an expert on fair use of logos and I have a couple of questions. I served as the technical advisor for an edit-a-thon at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art a few weeks back and one of the editors there created an article on Crawford Dunn a designer who, perhaps most notably, created a logo for the City of Dallas. The logo is, according to the City, both copyrighted and trademarked. That editor would at least like to link to somewhere where readers can see the logo. (Even with my weak knowledge of the vagaries of our fair use rules, I'm pretty darned sure the image cannot be fair-used directly on the Crawford Dunn article.) The logo does not appear on the articles for either the city-in-general, Dallas, or the city government in particular, Government of Dallas (who really owns the logo and city seal and flag, etc., even though the flag and seal appear on the Dallas-as-place article rather than on the government article). Here's my questions:

    • Would it be fair use to include the logo, along with the flag and seal, on the Dallas article or alone on the Government of Dallas article?
    • If so, must I take the image I upload from the City's website (where I can only find tiny copies of it) or can I take it from a third-party site such as this one or this one where I can get it in a decent size?

    I'm not pushing for any particular outcome: I want to get it objectively right. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @TransporterMan: Sorry for the delay in responding. Given that the logo appears prominently on the Dallas city website, it would be appropriate to the Dallas article as a symbol of the city. In fact, an argument could be made that it is more appropriate than the seal itself, given the visual presence of it on their site. I think it also appropriate to the Government of Dallas article. For sourcing, I would source to [17]. That .pdf is scalable to generate a screenshot of larger size and solid resolution for our purposes here. Plus, sourcing to the copyright owner is more appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, especially for the source. I'll move in that direction. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility

    (Parking this here mainly for my benefit, but also for any talk page watchers who'd like to comment)

    In December of 2014, ArbCom passed a 'remedy' that prohibited an editor from "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors" [18]. Umm, hello? ArbCom? Are you awake? Or have you just been asleep since WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA became policy? How about #4? No? One way to read this 'remedy' is that such a prohibition doesn't apply to the rest of us since ArbCom had to place it on this particular editor. I know that the CIVIL/NPA policies are the most disrespected on the project, but this tacit acknowledgement from ArbCom that those policies are void is shocking. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration enforcement 2 talk pages

    Hello, Hammersoft,
    Please be aware that for this case, editors must post in their own sections on case talk pages so there are no threaded discussions (aside from comments from arbitrators & clerks). This is a departure from standard practice in arbitration cases but this case has the potential to be volatile, with editors talking to each other rather than discussing the case and the evidence put forth. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 14:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Escape to Victory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Daniel Massey, Werner Roth and Paul Cooper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

    It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Deletion of article part related to username

    Hi there! I am working on my article again, but just wanted to reach out re my username. It is Aung2015, and not Bridgesventures as you have suggested. May I ask what the confusion is/why it has been flagged? Am still all very new to this! thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aung2015 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Employee

    Hi there Hammersoft, thank you for the information, this is helpful to be informed, as I'm sure you understand how complex your process is! I am indeed a paid employee of the company (as I suspect most writers are). Nevertheless I believe this post is notable, not least because of the number of people who ask for one (including students, journalists and social enterprises). I will not make any more edits/submissions and defer to the article for creation process as you have recommended.

    Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aung2015 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    86.14.94.31 continues to edit war on Principality of Sealand

    FYI: Fresh from his block expiry, IP 86.14.94.31 continues his edit war on Principality of Sealand. (Hohum @) 17:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Apropos of adding involved parties to the AE2 case

    Re your fears of being added to the case, I don't think you have to worry. Your insubordination pales in comparison with Bishzilla's, who made threats of violence against an arb just a few days ago.[19] I have proposed adding her as an involved party, but my suggestion was merely removed by a clerk and Bishzilla walks free. So it doesn't appear they add users easily. There must be something special about Giano. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    • Insubordination. Love it :) If someone is not involved in a dispute, ArbCom simply has no jurisdiction over them. Their role is very tightly defined. Nearly the entirety of the project is beyond their purview. I view ArbCom as being subordinate to me, an editor, rather than the other way around. Treating ArbCom like a group of gods just furthers the problem of the very serious deficiencies of ArbCom. So, yes, I am insubordinate to ArbCom...by definition of being an editor.
    • There may be something special about Giano. I don't know. What troubles me is the near total lack of transparency being displayed by ArbCom. Many people are asking questions about this case; who is included, scope, dates and more. I asked a week about why the workshop is closed via protection. No response. ArbCom's actions in this case seem largely bent on hatting/ignoring questions. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't worry too much (although, please do keep trying on my behalf). In my not inconsiderable experience of this place, most editors are basically decent people, and most Arbs eventually become rather bloated by their delusional grandeur. One or two like Risker and NewYorkBrad manage to survive the experience with their egos more or less in tact, but the vast majority do not. I have been quite buoyed by the amount of people (like yourself) who I have rarely, if ever, come across before who smell something unpleasant going on here. It doesn't matter if people agree with me or not (Yes, there is a Gender Gap; No, we don't need to hype it quite so much). Differing opinions and free speech is what makes the world go round, except in the world of bigots and fanatics. I have no worries that most Wikipedians agree with that and that view will prevail, and the present Arbcom will ultimatly be the losers here. History is a great teacher if you allow it to be. Giano (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed on all points. It is frustrating to me that ArbCom exhibits willful incompetence. Even when they are brought to task over how egregious their errors are, it takes a team of oxen to drag a toothpick forward. I don't know the psychological name for "absolute power corrupts absolutely", but I think most people who end up on ArbCom suffer that to varying degrees. The structure we've created for ArbCom inherently supports it. There is no oversight of ArbCom, no controls, no feedback loop. If ArbCom violates the community applied WP:ARBPOL (and they do), it matters not. There are no repercussions to it. If they violate their own established procedures (and they do), they make it up as they go along. They act apparently capriciously, and often very injudiciously. I've seen arbitrators go on full blown insulting rants, and nothing happens. I've seen arbitrators grossly violate the trust the community has placed in them, and it took insane pressure to get them to "admonish" one of their own. I think these things are a result of no checks on their power. Thankfully, they are not in charge of Wikipedia, and have jurisdiction only over disputes. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing

    Who are you to tell me what I can put on wiki its for everybody to edit???!!!!! I don't even know you so why are YOU telling me what I can put also I went to that school and so did the other person who went there. Don't tell me what and what not I cant do on wiki. Your not my parent(s). Don't tell me what to do. Saga757 7:00 November 9 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saga757 (talk • contribs)

    • Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unless you can provide reliable sources indicating that Eric Ackerman is "The smartest guy there", it isn't going to be included in the article. Sorry. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand that Wikipedia can't play host to people's personal opinions as to who the best basketball player is, who the most intelligent person is, who "Mister McDrive" is, etc. How angry you are with me has no bearing on this. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I put back Theo and Matt there relibale, why did you delete it they were there before, why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saga757 (talk • contribs)

    Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:TemplateTrip

    If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

    You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

    A tag has been placed on User talk:TemplateTrip, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

    If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Kim Jong-un#Rfc: Use of non-free image

    Hello. I'm in the process of writing a reply to the RfC at Talk:Kim Jong-un#Rfc: Use of non-free image. Having reviewed the previous RfC, which includes your comment, I was left wondering: the "prisoners, fugitives, and recluses" exception to WP:NFC#1 is frequently referenced in discussions, but I have not found any mention of this in any policy or guideline. Is this exception documented anywhere? How often are non-free images actually used in BLPs per this reasoning? (I have not found a single example, the one you used currently houses no such image). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The use under those exceptions are uncommon. There are a number of unwritten rules around here which nevertheless are very real. This is one of them. Another is that currency articles are not subject to the WP:NFCC policy except in so far as each non-free image on them has to have a rationale for usage. For a current example of an incarcerated exception, see Giovanni Brusca. I found this quickly, by looking at this list, and the third one I pumped in was this guy. I'm sure there's plenty more. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If You Don't Buy This Book, We'll Kill This Dog!

    What about a non-free for If You Don't Buy This Book, We'll Kill This Dog!? [20]

    Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not [22]? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, right. That's the magazine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom elections are now open!

    Hi,
    You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MCQ answer

    Just want to say that your answer at WP:MCQ#Fair use of logo was very helpful to me. No. 17 is a tricky thing to navigate sometimes, but the example you gave really helped cleared lots of things up. I may find myself subconsciously quoting it in future discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, not sure how well I answered. I was meaning to connect that to 17, by way of noting that a logo used in the parent organization is a similar case to the use of an iconic image on an article about that image, but not elsewhere. In the past, there have been enormous arguments over the use of logos for sports teams across every season of that team. We've previously ended up with logos that were in use on more than 50 articles. We seem to have finally gotten around that bend in the road. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Season's Greetings

    File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

    To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Leader's Greetings to you!

    Leader's Greetings!

    Dear Hammersoft,
    A wise man said "man is the master of everything and decides everything". Reflecting the single-hearted unity of our editors, I have decided to send these Leader's Greetings to you – Hammersoft – a masterful Wikipedian professing indomitable independence, creativity and consciousness in editing. May the popular masses and world progressive people enjoy your contributions next year, too! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy holidays on behalf of the North Korea working group, Hammersoft!
    PS. I left you a comment User:Hammersoft/Comments. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wishing you all the best . . .

    Merry Christmas, Hammer, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Yo Ho Ho

    ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

    Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15c}} to your friends' talk pages.

    Happy New Year, Hammersoft!

    Happy New Year!

    Hammersoft,
    Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

    Infobox Ethnic image

    Hi Hammersoft,

    The image in the infobox of the ethnic Igbo people, should it be removed as well? Stanleytux (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=698217629"