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 18:31, 31 December 2017 (note on two threads). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



    You deleted my addidtion to Juventus 1982-1983

    i think you made a mistake and would like for you to put it back. My father showed me an old document that talked about a man named Simon Angeli that played as a third string goalkeeper for Juventus in 1982-1983. While he had no playing time he had a huge heart and cheered on the team from the bench which i think deserves as much recognition as the starters. Lucasfernandez7 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi @Lucasfernandez7:. I appreciate your efforts, but understand that Wikipedia works off of verifiability. I did a search for his name and the word 'football' and came up with..nothing. While your assertion is, I'm sure, the truth...if we can't verify it, there's nothing to go on. I hope you understand. Also, you should have a look at WP:NFOOTY. If he did not actually play, he would not pass those standards for inclusion in the project. Cheering with a huge heart, while laudable, is not encyclopedic. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year

    That was a very useful piece of work. 6 months later... thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy to help. And huge thanks to everyone who chipped in to do the work. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, both of you, and anyone else. It's helping me find potential admin candidates. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ....he says while staring at my talk page ;) Sorry, couldn't resist. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin

    Is there a particular reason why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft is a redlink? You've been here a very long time. Would you consider doing one of the optional RfA polls to test the waters? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the above thread, this is funny :) I'm not against being an administrator. I have eschewed having additional rights beyond the absolute minimum, as I find it useful for a number of reasons. This covers some of it. There are a few things that stand against me being an administrator;
    1. No one's ever nominated me. You're now only the second person ever to suggest the possibility of being an admin and, oddly, both suggestions have been in the last week (though the first one this week had been suggested some time before, just a bit more emphatically this time).
    2. I lack content creation. I've no featured articles or even good articles. I've added some things, saved a few articles, made a few redirects, but most of my work has been focused on things other than content creation. I have found some interesting things to write about, and will be adding some new articles in the future. But, I'm not doing it to buttress a notional resume for RfA. I'm doing it because I find the topics interesting. I'm wrapping up finishing touches now on an article that I was astonished does not exist on Wikipedia, given it's very large historical significance, though it predates recorded human history. Regardless, my lack of focus on content creation will see me savaged at RfA.
    3. I've been a very vocal critic of ArbCom. A good example of this can be found [1], starting with "Well, now that this is headed to decline" I make no apology for my stance towards ArbCom's problems. Nevertheless, it is aggressive. I'm sure over the years I've angered quite a few arbitrators, and am certain of at least a few. Though no one has a !supervote at RfA, a few current/former arbitrators voting in opposition would likely torpedo an RfA.
    4. Similarly, I know of at least a couple administrators and a former administrator who I think would rather see me in hell than see me an administrator. The crux of this has much to do with my willingness to do the unpopular. I've stood up for some very unpopular people I felt have been mistreated. I've tried to stop initiatives that I felt were badly misguided, even if well intended and having significant support. I've frequently held people to task when I've felt they've gone off the beaten path. Perhaps most importantly; I've been willing to call a spade a spade. I've never intentionally insulted someone here, and have apologized any time there's been something misconstrued from what I (poorly) said. Still, if something needed to be said I've not been one to tip toe around the bush about it. This has angered quite a number of people.
    If that's not enough for you :) ... I could bring in someone to this discussion who is (and should he read this, this is not intended as any insult whatsoever) likely one of my most vocal critics. I'm sure he could speak to my many failures far more eloquently than my meager and unintentionally biased abilities allow. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First possible nominator chiming in here. RFA has a worse reputation than it actually merits. Most of the people who successfully run are near unanimous, looking at the last year there are actually fewer candidates getting 80-90% than over 90%. Even Ealgdyth hesitated before starting her run. ϢereSpielChequers 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's go through those.

    1. That's fine. You can nominate yourself. I might be happy to nominate you at the end of this though ;-)
    2. See the comments I made this morning to GamerPro64. Same for you.
    3. I think most of Arbcom are big boys and girls and won't care. And some Wikipedians would see any vindictive Arbcom opposes as reasons to support. Arbcom itself knows Arbcom isn't perfect, so I wouldn't worry too much - unless you've been unpleasant/uncivil, which changes everything
    4. Bring this (and the previous point) up yourself in the relevant RfA question. People like admins who are up front and especially if they admit they got things wrong / would do differently

    Final advice? Do the optional RfA poll and make a point of inviting the critic you mention. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a punt, but just in case I'm a "a former administrator who I think would rather see me in hell than see me an administrator", you needn't worry about that. Just because we've had run-ins, it doesn't mean I can see you as a great admin, just as I supported Ad Orientem. Of course, if I'm not "a former administrator who I think would rather see me in hell than see me an administrator", then sorry for the intrusion. Either way, you'd get a support vote from this former admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, you're not the administrator to whom I was referring, but certainly I had every expectation you would oppose me. Given our past interactions and my prior banning of you from my talk page (I'm not complaining about your violating that here; I just wanted to avoid negative interactions between you and I and this obviously isn't such a case), and my presentation of evidence at your ArbCom case, I strongly suspected you would oppose an RfA for me. Frankly, I'm as astonished as I think I can possibly be that you would support me. Far, far too many people on this project carry around chips on their shoulders. You obviously aren't one of them. With every effort in every regard to not sound patronizing, I am deeply impressed! You have been one of my most vocal critics in my support of people that I felt had been wronged. Your support means a lot to me. If I may, despite your support I think perhaps you would make a good proxy for those that would oppose me. If you would indulge me, lay it all out as to why someone would oppose me or otherwise think I would make a terrible administrator? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let TRM respond properly for himself, but I'd like to note that among the heaps of dung in that Arbcom case, this was, in my opinion, a diamond. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page stalker) As the man who wrote the rulebook on admins and content[dubious – discuss] - this GA and FA stuff is a load of baloney. By which I mean use the GA process if you like it (which I do), don't use it if you don't. I have 0 FAs (a situation unlikely to change), Carrite and Beyond My Ken doesn't see much value in the GA process so ignore it, yet I'd like to see somebody argue either of them are WP:NOTHERE to edit mainspace. The only interaction I can recall us having is a chat on User talk:Ritchie333/Monopoly. People seem to be okay about me filing nominations for people (despite, or perhaps even because, I don't do that many) so I don't mind looking into it. And I gave an "attaboy" to Ad Orientem earlier today for what I thought was a good admin decision, and am pleased he got the mop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have something stupid like 170 GAs, 70 FLs, 16 FAs. It doesn't matter. An appreciation of how to construct a decent article and more importantly an understanding of flashpoints related to content creation is more important. As for why would someone oppose you Hammersoft, I don't know. You and I are both forthright, I shoot from the hip, you use diplomatic language and don't give up. That's not a weakness, it's a good thing. I know that one of my weaknesses (was/is) the ability to realise when to drop something and move on. Your doggedness indicates that you're unlikely to drop stuff, but your style of debate makes up for that because it doesn't descend into personal affront, again like my "style".
    If I had to complain about something, it would be the adherence to policy. While we're all supposedly subject to the five pillars, their interpretation, particularly in micro-situations, needs to be flexible. I can tell you about an admin who has told others to "fuck off" (something I never did as an admin) yet he's not hauled to Arbcom to face WP:ADMINACCT. Primarily because he's goaded into it, but does a great job despite the odd "failing". Being an admin is purely about being helpful to Wikipedia (and in all honesty, 99.99% of what I did as an admin was to block vandals and delete offensive new pages, not that it counted for anything at Arbcom), and that's all I ever wanted to do. I can't do that now, so I'm just a pest who wastes my time writing out all the things than admins need to do to maintain the Main Page. It sucks, but it's my sentence. You have every skill needed to be a net asset as an admin here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your input! I think your appraisal of me is spot on. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. It is good to hear of weaknesses from others and try to improve. I've never intentionally harmed the project, and never would. I try hard to improve it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I know the admin you mean, I haven't hauled him to Arbcom because a) I'm nice, b) You get WP:BOOMERANGed c) Arbcom is dramah in a box, but most importantly d) He's not actually done anything that really warrants going there. Now, I've had a quick look through your basic stats and I can say this:
    • Your log file easily shows you have enough clue about how the basic tools work
    • This, in my view, easily shows you can look up sources and write prose around it. If you've got a bunch of other big edits like that, you'll be able to brush off the "doesn't have 25 FAs" nonsense opposes.
    • You haven't done too many AfDs, but probably enough to understand how they work, the only recent misfire where things didn't go your way was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (2nd nomination) and that looks like a "no consensus" rather than a "keep" if you ask me
    • You've taken part in over 30 RfAs, the majority of which went with consensus, and all show clue and understanding and are all fair comment.
    • No CSD / PROD / AfD warnings in the past year, save for a bot notice about a non-free file getting removed from an article, which are fine
    • Browsing through your deleted contributions (which admins can do), I don't see anything out of the ordinary; run of the mill CSD tags on articles which were all upheld
    • Your talk page shows a number of instance of you staying cool while you get yelled at, the worst that I can see is you hatting a thread and telling the other editor to use WP:DR. No problems.
    • You've got a heck of a lot of edits to user talk space. What's all that about?
    • There is one minor block that was handed out before some current admins created their accounts. Similarly, somebody took you to ANI for personal attacks about 8 years ago (looks like the thread died a death and nothing happened). If anyone complains about that, they're trolling.
    So based on all that lot (on the extra provision that you have no "skellies" in your closet that are non-obvious) you'd get a "support" vote from me. I don't see there's any reason why I couldn't write you up a nomination, unless you really really want somebody else to do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another note re: content creation at RfAs - I've recently had to hold off on putting forward a good candidate who ticks all the boxes and I'm confident would pass, except his one GA was reviewed in a sub-standard manner and doesn't actually meet the criteria. I don't blame the candidate for this - he explicitly told me he thought it wasn't a good job and was concerned about it. Since this would get picked apart at RfA, and sending it to GAR would attract attention, he's left with the unfortunate task of fixing it up manually before he can run. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't really matter what administrator I'm referring to. I just think he's emblematic of some of the opposition I can expect to receive. Yes, ArbCom is a lot of drama. I think that's unavoidable, though ArbCom could be dramatically improved in a number of ways. The Kevin Doherty addition...well, with the article I'm about to release, that will hopefully pale in comparison :) I haven't done too many AfDs, and the ones that I have done have tended to be edgy cases. I'm ok with that. I'm disappointed with the Potions AfD, but have dropped it. I might revisit it down the road if nothing changes, but I've dropped it for now. I get a heck of a lot of user talk space edits because I drop a lot of warnings. Out of my last 50 user talk space, ~60% of them were warnings, for example. I don't know if that's typical, but it feels like it is. I've talked about the block on my log. The AN/I thread; the person who brought it and I had a very long, drawn out dispute extending over a year. It was, shall we say, complex. It eventually died down, and he no longer edits Wikipedia. I think I was more abrupt back then than I am now. Please don't tell me age has begun to temper me. I'll hate you forever ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Content contributions

    My opposition to Oshwah was primarily because of his maturity (or at least as I perceived it); since he passed RfA, I have told him off for a few bad admin decisions. Per my popular essay, User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content, it says that all you need is evidence that you can write prose around sources, and explains why it's important. What it boils down to is - if two people have a screaming row in an article and one tells the other to fuck off, do you pull out the WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA hammer and block without hesitation, or do you examine circumstances and do what's best for the article?
    Along with Doherty, this edit is evidence of you writing content. So is this one. The trouble is, most of your mainspace edits (at least in the past year) are reverts to other editors, so it makes it difficult to ferret out examples. We definitely need more diffs like that though, to show you are not just a lean mean reverting machine ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't use Oshwah for this issue, many of the opposes in the second RFA were unrelated to content. I think the bar is pretty close to being set by Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/K6ka. It passed fairly narrowly, not far above the discretionary zone, and apart from one very odd oppose by someone who thought that he needed 6 months more experience because of some edits over two years ago, the opposes were pretty much all for lack of substantial content contributions. OK that's ignoring the no creation of articles opposes, but I'm guessing they wouldn't oppose an FA writer if they never started a new article. I guess somebody with a tad less content could squeak through, but I'm not convinced that the RFA crowd is that predictable, I can't see myself supporting a candidate with fewer content contributions than K6ka - he was pretty close to my minimum requirements in that regard. ϢereSpielChequers 17:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the recent run of RfAs demonstrates what the community thinks of serious writers coming forward for the mop. Those that don't like K6ka squeak through after a pretty stressful time. While Schwede66 has quite a few GAs under his belt and had a pretty easy RfA with a very good result. And as for Ealdgyth, talk about smacking the ball right out the park ... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think of myself as a lean, mean, reverting machine :) If it comes off that way...hmm. It's not intentional. I do undo a lot of vandalism. I would think that would be a good thing :) When I get this article I am working on launched, it should do a lot to show what I'm capable of in writing articles. Adding content isn't something I've done a lot of. But, I certainly know how to do it, and I hope this new article coming out will demonstrate that.
    • If people get into a row at an article and blow up each other, it's definitely NOT the time to bring out the hammers. My pseudonym is 'hammerSOFT' after all ;) Seriously, rows happen. A pattern of incivility is a problem. A blow up isn't enough by itself. It's time to throw some cool water on people and bring them to task, not time to add fuel to the fire by threatening or worse applying blocks. Anyway, this new article aside, I've got a bunch of other potential articles I can make. I do want to do more of that, but again not for any reasons of buttressing my resume for a notional resume, but just because I find it interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dweller: @Ritchie333: @WereSpielChequers: Here's the article I've mentioned I was working on: Lake Atna. Comments and input most welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Very nice. Don't suppose you know what the name means? ϢereSpielChequers 23:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Effectively, in the Ahtna language it means "copper". I know from a place names book that the Ahtna name for Copper River takes its name from that. I know that in 1965, Nichols named the lake 'Atna'. The problem is, I can not prove with cites that the name Atna is derived from the Ahtna language. Likelihood? Absolutely, but not without speculation. For all I know his mother was from Norway, a small village named Atna. So, I didn't put the etymology in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dweller: @Ritchie333: @WereSpielChequers: And another one: Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK nomination of Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant

    Hello! Your submission of Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Big South Conference Logo (2017).png

    Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a quick peak at File:Big South Conference Logo (2017).png when you get some time and checking if I made any errors? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for checking Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at File:Soccer Bowl '75 logo.png when you get some time? It's another one I converted from non-free to PD-logo. I wasn't able to find the exact source for the image, so I went with the closest thing I could find online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marchjuly: I would change the source into two sources; label the 1st as "original source", and say "North American Soccer League", and label the 2nd as something like "proximate source" with the source being what you've already used. Other than that, looks great. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric hetzel

    He actually did break his neck trying to jump over a table at his restaurant. I use to work for him. Dmeche96 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes to João Victor Guedes

    I modified the name of "João Victor Guedes" to "João Victor Guedes Neto". You will find proof that it is correct at https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=qEVgHQQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao. Additionally, as it is the name that appears in academic publications, assume it makes sense to use it in the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.254.12 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Lake Atna

    On 4 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lake Atna, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a megaflood from ancient Lake Atna 17,000 years ago may have contributed to the devastation caused by the 1964 Alaska earthquake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Atna. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lake Atna), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

    Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant

    On 4 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant in Saudi Arabia is the world's largest hybrid desalination plant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ras Al-Khair Power and Desalination Plant), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

    Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dash

    Thanks for your update on the passing of my namesake.

    Did you know that per MOS:DASH we use an en dash between years? (1927–2017), not (1927-2017). If you're on a Mac, that's option-hyphen; if not, you can copy and paste one, or enter it in various other ways. You don't have to, but it will save another editor having to correct your edit. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got an idea. If it's 3am and I can't get to sleep, can you pop round to my place and talk about MOS:DASH for about ten minutes? Should be better than counting sheep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RfA squared

    It looks like there's another run of RfAs happening at the moment, and you've got your DYKs onto the main page now, so if WereSpielChequers is up for it, shall we go for a nomination? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Quidditch - in-universe

    Hey there! I'm rather new to having a Wikipedia account - though I've helped work on an in-organisation mediawiki for a couple of years - but as you might be able to see from my account I'm working on various quidditch pages. The real-world variant, that is. However, that means I've also been paying attention to the regular Quidditch page, and I noticed that even though you started the thread on the talk page in 2015, it seems the in-universe tag - and the high amount of in-universe information - is still there.

    I was just wondering if I could get some context, because it seems that either nothing was later done with this, or I'm misunderstanding the in-universe problem. MissTimeturner (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @MissTimeturner: Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm quite glad you're here. Yes, this problem has existed for some time on that page. I'm sorry I neglected it. There's a guideline at WP:UNIVERSE which does a good job of explaining the abstract problem of in-universe style writing and article structure. To the specific article; yes, there is a real world quidditch. I've seen it. There's also the fictional world version, which of course was the genesis for the real world version. the problem is that the Quidditch article starts off well enough describing it as a fictional sport, but then quickly derails a highly detailed description of the game treating it as if it is a real sport. The encyclopedic view takes a much different view; what does the fictional sport mean in the real world? The way we support that is with secondary sources that talk about the game's impact on the real world, not the fictional world. In the currently article is talks about "Professional Quidditch teams" as if they are real. They aren't. In fact, that entire section needs to go as it relies solely on an in-universe perspective. As is, the entire article relies very heavily on primary sources which really should be used sparingly. If an article is so reliant on primary sources, it's a strong indication the article needs to be completely re-written or even deleted. Notability OUTSIDE of the universe is what is important; if the thing (whatever it is) hasn't made much of a splash outside of its fictional universe, it's not very notable. In this case, it is notable, but the notability most definitely does not support such an incredibly in-depth, in-universe description to sustain an encyclopedic article. It's a little bit like with a dictionary; if you were to look up the word "atom" in a dictionary you would not expect to find the periodic table of elements. Likewise, in an encyclopedia, if you were to look up "quidditch" you wouldn't expect to find every single scrap of information that has ever existed in the fictional world about the subject. Yet, that's what we have here basically. Does that help to clarify it? Let me know if I can help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I did read throgh the WP:UNIVERSE page earlier, but because the comment had been made so long ago yet the content was still there, I was wondering if I might be misunderstanding something. If you need any help cleaning up that article, I'd be happy to help (with some guidance)? (I'll admit, I have a bit of a vested interest in cutting that page down, because cutting out the huge amount of HP-universe specific information about things like teams and tournaments means people will be more likely to read through until the part about real world quidditch. But then again, from your explanation, I imagine that would be part of the point of an encyclopedic entry anyway?) MissTimeturner (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WT:NFCC discussion on rfu

    Hi Hammersoft. Thank you for helping to clarify things in the rfu discussion. FWIW, I have no problem further discussing things at FFD regarding either the "Hayman" or "Morgan" (the rfu tag was removed from there as well) files if that's what it takes to properly sort things out. The non-free use of the Morgan file does seem to be more contentious, which is something that actually lead to Jane Morgan being protected so that it can now only be edited by admins. Right now, the file is technically an orphan, so it's going to be deleted per WP:F5 if it's not re-added to an article. Deletion by default does not seem to be very helpful and will only create more bad feelings. Are you aware of a way for a non-free file to avoid non-free deletion while its use is being discussed? Is there sort of a {{db-g8-exempt}} that can be used for files? The {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} was also removed when the "rfu" template was removed. Should the rfu-disputed tag be re-added? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not tagged as orphaned right now. You could just place it at FfD. But Hullabaloo is correct. There's no justification for this image. This is a clear cut case, and the discussion advocating for the image on the article's talk page is flat wrong. It's simple; she's alive. She's not incarcerated or life, or a noted recluse. There is no source commentary regarding the image. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC. Just because we can't find a free image of her at the moment is no justification. That argument has been used many, many times and it has failed every time. It's no different now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted at the article's talk page. Hopefully it clarifies things. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You removed File:Windows 10 build 14393 (Redstone).png

    @Hammersoft: I don't remove image please see --MasterChiefToolWiki23 (Talk|Contrib) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @ToolWiki23: Yes, I did. I'm sorry that you restored it, as such use is completely against policy here. Please see the description page for the image at File:Windows 10 build 14393 (Redstone).png. You will note that further down, under "Licensing" it has information about the licensing of the image. That licensing tag unequivocally states "the use of this screenshot in Wikipedia must comply with Wikipedia Non-free Content Criteria policy". Now please refer to our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, in particular item #9 on that policy. This item notes that such images may only be used on articles. Your userbox is not an article. As such, the use of this image on your userbox is forbidden by the policy. I am removing it again, as this is a clear violation of policy. Please do not restore the image again. If you have questions, please ask. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem non-free image no restore --MasterChiefToolWiki23 (Talk|Contrib) 08:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Squanto

    Hammersoft: Since you are one of the top 5 editors on Squanto (and one of the few who is actually a human who writes things), I thought I'd get your thoughts on eligibility of Squanto for FA nomination. The current ORES score (which I take is a probability) is "FA .5242442070002001" and "GA .21814906861103323" What think ye? AnthroMimus (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've noticed you doing a lot of work on it. Edit counts for me don't tell the whole story though. While I might show up as being a frequent editor of the article, I'm not. I've just fought a lot of vandalism on it. I may have a look in a day or so, if that's ok. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, would appreciate another pair of eyes. And based on my reading of your user and talk pages, you know vastly more about WikiPolitics that I do (or care to). Anyway, when I first started editing Squanto, the main problem was distinguishing the edits that were real and those that were vandalism. So if you have that experience, you are half-way there. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AnthroMimus: Ok taking a little bit of time to review. I just went through the lead section. I think it is too long. Even the very first sentence can be trimmed. Remove "whose name was variously spelled in 17th-century documents and is". The Name section below covers it in more detail. The Patuxet people being annihilated by epidemic is not precisely topical. And on and on. I see a lot of opportunity to trim, focus, and be tightly topical. There's also no substantiating sources in the lead. This isn't a requirement, per se, but a majority of featured articles have sources in the lead. Right now, the lead is 790 words long. That is quite a lot. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section may be useful. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On this day, 10 years ago...

    Hey, Hammersoft. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
    Have a great day!     Lepricavark (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added TheDJ
    removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

    Guideline and policy news

    • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
    • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
    • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
    • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

    Technical news

    • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
    • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re:Humbert Roque Versace

    Thank you for the kind words my friend. I also consider you to be one of Wikipedia's brightest gems. Yes, I have noticed that sometimes websites post content from Wikipedia without the proper attribution. Some years ago, I was browsing the web when I noticed that a Jewish magazine posted the "Jewish immigration to Puerto Rico" article which I wrote in Wikipedia, plus another person posted his name as the author. I wrote to them explaining about the plagiarism committed by that person (fake-author). The article was removed and the situation solved. Another website, uploaded pictures which I took of Buckeye, Arizona without giving me or Wikipedia any credit. I wrote to them also. Well my friend I hope you have a wonderful day, Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
    removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Miscellaneous

    • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion declined: Susan Herlin

    Hello Hammersoft. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Susan Herlin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 10:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlanta Falcons Name

    It needed to be done Bobby Buns (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you a falcons fan or something? Bobby Buns (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-free image use in CTC (TV station)

    Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at the non-free image use in CTC (TV station)? There are currently almost 30 non-free screenshots and logos being used in the article, most of which do not seem to comply with WP:NFCCP. Anyway, before I start a FFD discussion for all of these files, I wanted some feedback to see if there are any which might possibly be kept. Also, I am wondering if it would be better to divide things up into multiple FFDs or try to tackle everything is one big FFD. Any suggestions on how to best deal with something such as this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not going to go through image by image, but would like to point out a few things. One, File:Telecom Tower Film CTC 1980.jpg needs to go. A fair use image is not needed. The "film" isn't mentioned in prose. A free use image is available on the article about the tower. Two, the CTC_(TV_station)#CTC_Identity section needs to go. I believe some years back there was an RfC about such sections that deprecated them. I don't know if I can rapidly find that RfC again (one of the limitations of the Wikipedia environment). Three, there are various images scattered throughout the article that need to be considered on a case by case basis. There's far, far too many. A lot of trimming is in order. There is no excuse for this article having the 5th highest amount of non-free usage on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for taking a look and the general feedback. FWIW, I wasn't expecting a detailed assessment of each image, just perhaps a mention of those whose non-free use might actually be OK. I didn't realize the article was so high on the list of articles with lots of non-free files, but I do think the non-free use in it is pretty excessive regardless of its "ranking". Anyway, detailed discussion is more suitable for FFD which I will try and get to soon. Do you think it would be best to try and tackle everything in one big FFD or better to break things down in to smaller FFD (perhpas on a per image basis)? All of the files seem to have been uploaded/added by the same SPA editor; they were probably added in good faith, but just without much consideration given to whether they really complied with the NFCCP and I don't want it to seem as if any particular editor is being targeted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh you're fine. I wasn't suggesting you were asking me to go image by image. My tendency would be to do that, but yesterday was...shall we say.."hectic" outside of Wikipedia, so I was trying to excuse myself :) I think you need a multi-pronged approach here. The tower image, as I noted, just needs to go. Based on policy, there just isn't any need for it in any respect. We have a free image of it, and the documentary about its construction isn't discussed in the article. That same approach can be used for any non-free image in the article. I.e., whether free replacement imagery exists or not, is the non-free image discussed in the article? If it isn't, it likely can just go without any FFD or further discussion. Remove it, if it's orphaned, tag it as such, notify the uploader, and move on. Make sure you note in the edit summary why it's being removed. For the gallery of logos...maybe I can find that RfC. Give me a bit. Regardless, WP:NFG applies. Though, you have to be watchful after the fact if you do remove the gallery and orphan the non-free images. I've seen editors defy the spirit of the policy by then sprinkling the logos all through the article, rather than in a gallery. Refer back to whether the logo is discussed. For those images that are discussed, a case by case analysis is needed in regards to WP:NFCC #8. Does the reader need to have the image to understand and appreciate the passage where the image content is discussed or is it really just decorative and the content adequately described in prose? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok I found some discussions. Some of them are quite old. I did this search and came up with this from 2006, this from 2008, another from 2008, 2009, and 2012. There may be others. @Masem: has been part of some of those discussions and might be able to shed light on a conclusive discussion. For my part, this gallery of past logos needs to go. If a particular logo is discussed in prose using secondary sources to support the discussion, fine. Otherwise, it's pure decoration. Some might say "but it's historical!" That is true. But, something that gets lost on people; Wikipedia is a tertiary resource. We are not a history book. An encyclopedia is not a history book. That, plus adding the burden of non-free content that we do not absolutely need tears at our core mission of providing a free license product. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the additional detailed assessment and the links to those prior discussions. It might be best to try and deal with this is stages than all at once. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another image question and info about NFCC#10c bot

    I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a peek at Talk:2016 Australian National Handball Championship season‎#Logo Removal to make sure I'm not providing incorrect information to this editor. For reference, the logo in question was one of those which are seemingly added in good faith but without rationales to large number of articles despite only having a rationale for a single article. This editor is at least attempting to fix the problem; I just don't see how it can be done.

    Also, it appears that somebody is (was?) running a bot to remove files missing rationales from articles like with this edit. I remember hearing about someone else doing something similar to this well before my time, and that person seemed to run into problems and got some serious blowback from some others. Anyway, this bot has already been brought up at WP:ANI#User:JJMC89 bot. -- Marchjuly (talk)

    • On the handball page issue; I've responded on the talk page there. On the bot; yeah, Betacommand used to run a bot that did similar work. Whenever an effort like this begins, either the bot or the human gets a ton of blowback about it. It is what it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for taking a look at that logo's use. Also, too bad about the bot thing. There seemed to be a few hiccups, but it did catch quite a lot of inappropriately used images. A few of them were even ones I had previously removed, but were re-added by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    i hope you get banned

    you are worthless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob647283984537428914835423 (talk • contribs)

    • I'm sorry you think so. If, in the future, you decide to come back as a productive editor rather than a vandal, please be sure to sign your posts by using the appropriate button in the editing window toolbar or by adding "~~~~" to the end of your posts. Have a great day, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
    removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks

    Hi Hammersoft. Thanks for helping to sort out WT:NFCC#Duplicate non-free files. I come across this type of thing every now and then, but sometimes I'm not too sure on which file (or files) should be tagged per WP:CSD#F1. In this case, one of the files had a different original version, so I didn't know whether it might have been possible to keep both by simply removing the "updated duplicate version" from that file.

    I've come across something else that maybe you can also help sort through. Would you mind watching List of World War II flying aces for a bit? An IP has been adding non-free images to the article with edit sums like this, but I don't think this type of usage is commonly considered an "exception" to NFCC#10c, WP:NFLISTS or WP:NFG. FWIW, I have posted on the IP's user talk offering some suggestions on what they can do if they still disagree, so maybe that will be enough. The IP account is only a few days old so perhaps this is really just a new editor who means well but is just not familiar with relevant policy; one who will now hopefully decide to address their concerns through discussion and not by continuing to add the files to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've watchlisted it. Since you posted here, he's made an edit to add an unarguably free license image to the article. He's prior argument that we had no choice but to add these images because these guys are famous is of course false. He's learning. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for adding the article to your watchlist. I saw the edit you're referring to and have no problem with it. It did, however, make me wonder whether the IP mistakenly assumed that my removing of the files had something to do with the nationalities of the pilots. I have no problem with any mentioning of those two pilots in the article and did not remove their names from the table. I just couldn't figure out a way to link their images in that type of gallery format, and didn't want to go in a completely redo the table just to add a couple of images. In addition, that table seems a bit bloated (at least it does to me) with quite a lot of unsourced red-links whose inclusion probably should be revisted. Anyway, thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Warring

    Hi Hammersoft, Thank you for your warning. I have left a message on the article's talk page regarding continuous inappropriate content removal by the user NZ Football Conscience.Rumorattic (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Commentdude vandalism

    Please i did not vandalize any article. Just left messages on talkpages without touching anyone elses comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commentdude (talk • contribs)

    But the articles are safe which is important and no ones commnet is ruined. And i you hate my comnets they can be reverted qihout harm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commentdude (talk • contribs)

    • Your edits to the various talk pages are not conducive towards further improvements to any article. You know this as well as I do. Meta discussions about whether your edits are helpful are pointless. I've requested your account to be blocked for consistent vandalism. If you decide to return to Wikipedia, please do so in a productive way. If you continue to edit as you have, you will be blocked again. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mexican Americans

    Hi, Hammersoft. I'm not sure if you got a notification, but I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your posts on the discussion we were having about the Mexican American page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
    removed Zad68

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Miscellaneous

    • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
    • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
    • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    YGM

    Hello, Hammersoft. Please check your email; you've got mail!
    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.— Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    PreColumbian civilization erradicated in Central New Mexico.

    It seems to me that you are burying the truth about New Mexico's history. The descendants of folks originally involved have systematically suppressed documentation you requested. The only evidence I can offer you requires boots on the ground. I invite you to meet, with a TV crew along to document. BringemYoung (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Driving side

    Good day Hammersmith, I live in Ghana and I think I'm right if I say we drive on the left . Right-hand drive cars may be seen on the road but it's not allowed in the country . Kojosapong (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Available sources that I have found indicate right. I appreciate that you live in Ghana (love the culture by the way...the celebrations at funerals, the caskets...stunning stuff! I wish we did it more like that, though I know the parties attract way more people than ever knew the deceased), but we have to rely on reliable sources. Anecdotal evidence, even from a person that lives there, is not usable to us. For examples of sources that indicate right, see this and this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to your ArbCom statement at "Magioladitis 2" request...

    I thought about adding my statement there, but I feared that I might screw up and that my statements won't help much. Anyway, I don't know why you are critical toward the scope of the request. However, why not "Magioladitis and others" case and/or "bot tasks" case? Would that do? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thinking back about what you said about "Magioladitis 2" request, something tells me that the "Magioladitis" cases may have affected the AWB software. I have been using AWB software without realizing until recently that Magioladitis is one of the developers. Also, how would the decisions made affect the AWB software? --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know. A great weakness of the project is that semi-automatic and bot software is not controlled by the project, but by individual editors. If they leave, their software tends to go with them. In WP:NFCC enforcement, we rely on the work of an editor who has been banned from the project for five years. If (I've no idea) Magioladitis has done some great wrong, I would not want to see him not face sanctions simply because his work on AWB is important to the project though. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: your statement has been hatted. May you or I make further statements? (Also emailed you) --George Ho (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaaved jaaferi

    You have some wrong statistics which need correction. Eggjactly (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Case opened

    You were recently listed as a party to or 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/Maglioladitis 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mexican American "Intermarriage"

    Hammersoft, I made another post to you about Mexican American "intermarriage" and I wanted to make sure that you got the notification. I'm not sure how to see if you did on here. Anyways, I know that it is a very long and exhaustive post, but please hear me out on this and read all of it. As I'm sure you can tell, I really feel strongly about this. Thanks. Calendar2014 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    bam

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    a pie Tallahassle (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ?

    Or maybe you intended this?

     :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure if that was intended for me or not. From the date posted, it appears as though it was. But you know what? The only people that lose out here are yourself, Hammersoft and any other people that aren't interested in whether or not information is truthful, but instead allow (rather old) misinformation to stay on the page simply because it "follows the rules" of Wikipedia. Whoever posted that on there could just as easily be accused of violating WP:SYNTHESIS for making the implication that unions between Mexican American females and non-Hispanic white males are more common than they actually are and that unions between Mexican American females and black non-Hispanic males are practically non-existent for not providing that information at all. Calendar2014 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It matters to me. Calendar2014 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you wish to hash out a grievance with him, then do so on his talk page. I don't perceive their to be a problem. My talk page is not the appropriate place to handle this. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, whatever the intention was (as well as your response to it), it happened on your talk page, so that is why I responded to it on here. I do not wish to "hash" out a grievance with him or you. Your welcome. Calendar2014 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
    removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    10 years since collapse of I35W

    For those of you who are watchers of my talk page...

    It has been ten years now since the collapse of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, in which 13 people lost their lives and dozens more were injured. I was reminded of this because of the "On this day..." section on the main page. While looking at information regarding the collapse, I went to the Google Streetview for the immediate area, and came across this. Look in the lower right; the van was there in July 2007, within the last month before that bridge collapsed. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review for File:Photo of AC 759 near landing on taxiway at SFO.jpg

    An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Photo of AC 759 near landing on taxiway at SFO.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Nakon • Scott
    removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
    • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
    • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

    Arbitration

    • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding my non-free images

    Hi

    I've received a notice regarding my non-free images that I've uploaded. Apparently there's a problem with the licensing, and they must all be removed, correct?

    I've been wondering about Wikipedia's licensing regarding imagery of cigarette packs, and how to comply to the licensing rules to make them stay. I've asked that question before on the Village Pump, but I never got an asnwer.

    So, here's my question: I've got a HUGE collection of packs and I would love to add them to Wikipedia. Some got image warnings on them, some text warnings and some nothing. I've seen before that some images are allowed on Wikipedia, while many get struck down for copyright problems or other licensing-related issues. My question is; what is/are the right type of license(s) to properly upload any of said packs onto Wikipedia, to help out when it comes to the image section?

    Furthermore, are only the images on the List of Cigarette brands going to be removed, or are the images in general going to be deleted?

    Cheers

    MatteoNL97 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Short answer; it's complicated. I know that's not very helpful, and I wish I could make it easier. But, alas. Copyright is a complex subject. Even people who spend a long time working on things related to it are still confused when it comes to certain situations. Whether or not a particular cigarette pack is in the public domain or not is complex. Have a look at this chart from Cornell regarding copyright status. If your head isn't spinning yet, there's even more issues than that which come into play, in so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your safest bet is to model your uploads of cigarette packaging in line with that which you can see at File:Gitanes Blanc (Full Flavour).jpg. I.e., presume they are all non-free. Of note; doing sampling of many of the images on the List article, I find many images posted on Commons that are likely non-free. Don't presume something is free until proven otherwise, but rather the opposite. As for the images on the list article; since you added them, I was hoping you'd remove them. They don't need to be removed from other articles, just the list article. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    lala land

    Taadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longrangerinthesky12345 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A moron who removes sourced content from Wikipedia. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longrangerinthesky12345 (talk • contribs)

    • I'm sorry you feel motivated to continue to edit war in an attempt to force what you want onto Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a community, and nobody 'gets their way' here. If you would like to return as a productive editor, willing to work within this community rather than fight against it and call people "morons", you would be most welcome. You are obviously passionate about the topics you have so far only edit warred on. Your passion, if used productively, would be most welcome. Your call. However, I assure you that if you continue to behave in the way you have, you will be continually thwarted in your efforts by far many more people who care about this project just as passionately as you appear to be about the Indian defense industry. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Rosendahl photo

    Just received a threat on social media(!!) about the photo on this page, from what looks to be his campaign manager or someone who works at his constituency office. They are threatening to report me to other bodies and apparently have already 'reported me to Wikipedia' for repeatedly reinstating an 'offensive photo' of the subject. Unfortunately, I don't really have too much time to deal with this kind of thing at the moment, but this might be worth raising on some kind of noticeboard. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's interesting. I wonder why they think it is offensive? I'll keep an eye on it to see if there is more disruption at the article or the image on Commons. It's hard to imagine any sort of illegal activity worthy of "other bodies" being notified of this image being used. If the threats make it to Wikipedia, I'll bump it probably to WP:AN/I. For now, I'll monitor. Thanks for the heads up! Also, thanks for the image! Relatively obscure politicians frequently lack images here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I work for MLA Eric Rosendahl. Connor Mah works for his political opposition and is posting vulgar pictures of MLA Rosendahl. Please prevent this person from posting on MLA Rosendahl's page. I will post an appropriate image if I am given instructions. I am also reporting this activity to our legal department at the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and the Ethics commissioners office. If you require further information, please contact the office of MLA Rosendahl at 780 865 9796.

    I am trying to upload an appropriate and authorized picture of Eric, but your system is not accepting. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Yellowhead (talk • contribs)

    • @West Yellowhead: Wikipedia has a policy regarding articles that are biographies of living people. You can view that policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (also referred to as WP:BLP). In particular, the section Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images contains guidance on how to handle images of living people. In looking at File:Eric Rosendahl 2015.jpg, I fail to see anything that is vulgar. The picture depicts a moment at the 2015 Alberta Premier/Cabinet swearing-in ceremony. Mr. Rosendahl was appearing in a public place during a ceremony at which any reasonable person would expect to be photographed. The image appears to comply with our WP:BLP policy in every respect.
    • @Connormah: Connor Mah has uploaded a great many photographs of people, especially political figures. Those contributions can be viewed here. Looking through his last 500 image uploads dating back more than two years, I fail to find any image that could even be remotely construed as 'vulgar', much less about Mr. Rosendahl.
    • On images; Wikipedia accepts images of living people only (with very, very few limited exceptions) if the images are free of copyright or are released under a free licenses. It is recommended that such images be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Specific instructions on what and how to upload images to Commons are available here. Please note; unless you are the copyright holder yourself (i.e. you took the picture on your own time, and not paid by someone else), then the image belongs to that someone else or entity. You can not release rights to an image unless you are provably the designated copyright agent for that person/entity.
    • Given that you are working for Mr. Rosendahl, you MUST comply with our policy on paid editing per our terms of use. I will post a warning message to your talk page to this effect.
    • Please be aware that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute. Connormah is an editor in good standing here. There is no reason to block his actions on the Eric Rosendahl. If you believe there is such a reason, I encourage you to review our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to support your position that he is acting in some way contrary to our policies and guidelines here.
    • Lastly, and very importantly, we have a policy regarding legal threats on Wikipedia, which you can view at Wikipedia:No legal threats. I strongly, in the most animated terms, encourage you to withdraw your accusation that there is something worthy of legal action here. If you continue to make or imply legal threats here, it is extremely likely that your account will be blocked until such time as those legal threats are withdrawn. I will post a warning to this effect on your talk page as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just sent you an e-mail on this case. Connormah (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
    removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
    • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi

    I came to mention that the Kent State photo seems to have been approved for use on the article (per the photo's page) and when I arrived I found your user page which looks really interesting. Don't have time to read it now, but looking forward to doing so, did a brief skim of some of it and know that it's worth the read, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Randy Kryn: Thanks for your message! I'm going to contradict you, but I'm sincere in thanking you :) Always good to have a conversation. Several things to consider;
    First, and most important, we have WP:NFC#UUI #6 which states "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)". We have such an article with Kent State shootings. Yes, granted, the article isn't "Kent State shootings picture" or the like. Nevertheless, this image is the most iconic image of this event, and quite properly is featured prominently in the infobox of the article. It's the first image anyone sees when they come to the article, and it's the image that anyone who has heard of this event is most likely to remember. Since this image has its own article, its use anywhere else on the project is proscribed. Instead, as the guideline notes, we should provide a link to the image's article. In the case of Mary Ann Vecchio and John Filo, this has already been done in proper compliance with the guideline.
    In 2011, the enforcement of this aspect of the guideline was quite lax. The led to iconic images being used frequently on the project. When enforcement started in earnest, sometimes voluminous debates would erupt of their usage in articles other than the specific article about the image. Sometimes rather large debates would ensue over their removals. The outcome of these various debates was that the iconic image in question was invariably removed from the articles in question, and instead a link was provided to the article, per the guideline. An example of this is File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which is used now only on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. From time to time, people attempt to use it outside of the article, and it is removed from those uses (fairly often by me). Where people usually attempt to use it is on the article of the author, Joe Rosenthal. But, even though Rosenthal won the Pulitzer for this image, it is not on his article. This is why the Filo image on the Kent State shootings is not on his article. It is also why his image, which is owned by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and is very arguably their most iconic photograph, does not appear on their article either. There other examples of this with File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg and File:Sharbat Gula.jpg.
    I hope this helps clarify things and shows why we can't use this image anywhere but on Kent State shootings. Thanks for your comments about my userpage. I haven't done a recent update of it, though lord knows there's plenty to write about. Looking at your own userpage, I see the userbox that says "This user has made more than 1 contribution to Wikipedia." Exactly! When it comes to editing, all good faith editors here are in the same standing regardless of how many edits they have or how many additional privileges, but few people seem to recognize that. Your userbox seems to convey the message that we are all equal, and I wholeheartedly applaud that.
    @Moe Epsilon: I'm pinging you to this as you are the one who did the review back in 2011, and you are still active on the project. Your input? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I don't remember with whom or at what venue it was discussed but I remember discussing rationales being provided for those three articles. It wasn't so much that in 2011 it was more lax, it's more that editors were more ingrained in their ways with having these images on their articles. Based on the current policy and rationales (including the previous ones), I agree it only applies to the Kent State shooting article. I don't really base this on the NFC UUI so much like you did, just WP:NFCC#Policy It explains it well why they don't apply there, particularly contextual significance. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was going by your 2011 decision. Looks like you two have devoted lots of interest and energy in maintaining the image collection and keeping devoted links growing between the sister-projects. Hammersoft, have read over your user page once, I'll have to do a second read. Have some of the problems with the foundation improved in the past couple of years? Thanks again to both of you for your long and complete answers which clarify the reasoning concerning the use of the Kent State image. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my knowledge, little has improved. The one thing I do know they were working on was a trust fund. I do not know its status at this point. The structural and management issues remain, so far as I'm aware. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wardrobe

    It's true. I've got a suit I bought for a job interview in March 1999, and at least four jumpers I distinctly remember getting from M&S before that. I've still got two fully working MIDI cables I bought for an Atari ST in 1987 (obviously it's a bit stupid to wear those, though). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh lord. I traded my Atari 520ST for a six pack. I kid you not :) I couldn't sell it. So, I tried to give it away. No one wanted it. I was about to give up and this guy called me and said he wouldn't take it for free, insisted he give me something for it. So, I took a six pack for it. I think I have a box somewhere with bits and pieces from prior iterations of technowonders in the bat cave, but definitely no midi cables! Wow! Maybe you could use a midi cable as a belt? Now THAT's a fashion statement! Actually, I endorsed you because (a) you're the only one I've worked with, (b) my experience with you has shown you are quite capable, and (c) TRM wouldn't endorse someone he thought less than capable, and no matter our disagreements over the years, he's quite intelligent and I trust his endorsement...and you're the only one he's endorsed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ritchie333: By the way, ran across this. Hysterical :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eurocoin scan

    Hi Hammersoft - we had contacts concerning Eurocoins before, therefore I ask you for advice. I just received the information, that User:Marabu12 uploaded a scan on Commons which I made (and uploaded to deWP) and claimed that very scan to be his own work: c:File:2 Euro Gedenkmünze 2007 Deutschland.jpg is identical to the third version of de:Datei:2 Euro Gedenkmünze 2007 Deutschland.jpg. It seems to me that he uses to claim existing depictions of coins to be his own work. For example c:File:2 Euro Gedenkmünze 2007 Deutschland.jpg and c:File:2 Euro Münze Kölner Dom.png are copied from a publication of the German government. See further contributions: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marabu12 >>> Could you, please, initiate the deletion of my scan which runs under a fake name on Commons? Thank you in advance, Hammersoft! Yours --Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended confirmed

    I'd like to ask you to reconsider giving up this group. Some of your recent edits have triggered an edit filter that only triggers for non-extendedconfirmed editors. When experienced editors trigger such a filter, it makes it harder for edit filter managers to review for signs of abuse. ~ Rob13Talk 12:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm amenable, but how often does this really happen? I find not having EC a powerful tool to help evaluate how new editors experience Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hardly. Three hits yesterday, before that once 3 months ago, and before that also once 4 months ago. And for the last three of yesterday, I would call those false positives that the filter should not have in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Beetstra: Interesting. What did it false positive on yesterday? Diffs? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure whether I should disclose that as the filter is set to 'invisible' (though I think it rather harmless that you know). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries then. @BU Rob13: can you confirm you are referencing 3 potentially false positives from yesterday? If so, what do you think about modifying the filter to account for the false positives? I'd rather like to maintain the lack of EC for now, if its not much of a burden. If you feel it is a burden, you can give the EC right back to me. Your call. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am referencing three edits yesterday, but I would not call those false positives. This particular filter is intentionally quite broad but includes a rate limit. Because this filter is very easily avoided and often spots extremely abusive behavior that would otherwise be undetected until the disruption was large, I don't want to go into more detail than that publicly. I'm not super concerned about your tripping them once if you're attached to the idea of not having the right. I'd be much more concerned if you started tripping them semi-regularly. (I suppose another possible solution is to literally add in a check to the filter that the editor is not you, but that's not too practical.) ~ Rob13Talk 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh wow, no, please do not add a special exemption for me. I was more hoping there was a way to modify the filter such that it avoided similar situations. But, maybe given that I'm supposed to automatically have EC but don't by request, I might be the only case. Maybe there isn't a similar situation. I understand about not wanting to state anything publicly about the nature of the filter. I'll leave it to you to decide; if you feel it would be easiest/best if I had EC, then add it. I prefer to not have it for now as it does help me see the Wikipedia experience through the eyes of a new editor. Nevertheless, the needs of the project far outweigh the need (not even a need; a want) I might have. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, let's wait for now. If you happen to trip this filter again soon, then we can revisit. (This isn't the first instance of the filter being tripped by you, but the last one was 4 months ago, as Dirk said.) ~ Rob13Talk 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • @BU Rob13: it does not make much sense to test editors who are way beyond the number of edits that qualify them for being autoconfirmed, or even extended confirmed .. The people who are beyond those limits will never be automatically given that right again, because it has been taken away from them. Seems like an easy fix. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
    removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Obituaries

    • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again

    Just got around to reading through my talk page. Thanks again for all of the talk page stalking you've been doing while I was away. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SINCE WHEN DID ED AND KNOW YOUR MEME BECOME LESS BIASED THEN WIKIPEDIA

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! GO BACK TO YOUR SAFE SPACE!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForNoGoodReason (talk • contribs)

    Where you BORN WITH AUTISM!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForNoGoodReason (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Royal St. George's College

    We don't list random people in articles like these; we only list those who are notable enough to have articles about them in Wikipedia. If you feel any of these folks are notable, create the article first, then add it to the Royal St. George's College article. As to the maintenance tag: have you read the damned thing cold? It's got this jolly, chummy Anglophile old-boy tone that reeks of bias and promotionalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No prob, then. Have a good weekend. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    The Barnstar of Good Humor
    That was hilarious. LoL. I promise to steal that <sigh> for my edit summary someday. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

    Administrator changes

    added Joe Roe
    readded JzG
    removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

    Guideline and policy news

    • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
    • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom 2017 election voter message

    Hello, Hammersoft. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

    The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Benton fireworks disaster

    Hi Hammersoft. I'm wondering what you think of the non-free images being used in Benton fireworks disaster. The non-free use rationales are just boilerplate template speak and these all seem at least to be decorative and of such poor quality that that have little value. It also appears that they've been "blown up" (no pun intended) to a much large size than they originally were which has blurred out most of the detail at least in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's excessive. None of the images are directly referenced by the article. I would trim it down to a single image for the infobox, using either the current image or File:Benton tn fireworks explosion damages.png. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I thought. An infobox image might be able to be justified, but other ones especially the one showing the sign seemed non-comliant. For what it's worth I noticed this because of this page on my watchlist. However, after seeing File:Olgiati bridge.jpg, File:Timgobble.jpg and File:Brainerdhightn.png (wthe last one is clearly mislicensed as PD) also uploaded by the same editor, I think it might be best to ask this person to slow down a bit with the file uploads.
        • The article's creator has nominated it for GA status. If that's the case, then excessive non-free image use should be discussed. However, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to start a FFD on these while the GA review process is on going. A GA review has yet to be started, so maybe FFD'ing them would be OK, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The bridge picture needs to be deleted, no matter what other processes are affecting the article. Something being up for GA review should be all the more reason to get it right. The justification on the bridge image as not being replaceable because one doesn't exist is obviously wrong. The Brainerd High image is obviously mislicensed. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    File licensing

    Hi Hammersoft. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Anaglyph#Image copyright licenses to check that I’m not missing something about these files and I’m not giving this editor incorrect information? Thanks. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was afraid I might've posted too much. Anyway, I'll leave it as is and see if the uploader has any questions, and try to make future posts less dense. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    File:South Park Logo.png

    This was also uploaded by Robloxian56 who also uploaded the non-free Modern Family character pics. I'm pretty sure this one is OK as {{PD-logo}}, but if it isn't then I don't see how this type of non-free use can be justified. Do you think this is safe to convert to PD-logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, while I agree this is free, it is because it looks like it is just a standard typeface that includes the beveling effect. (The lighting/shading doesn't vary even with the change in angle of the letters, indicating this to me). Beveling, with the choice of light direction, depth, and other factors, can be considered a creative element (equating to the choice of light and composition a photographer has of taking a picture of a 3D object), but because the beveling came from the font and not whomever assembled the title card like this, that's eliminating the issue, making this free under US law at least. --Masem (t) 00:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the additional clarification Masem. I've got another non-free question for both you and Hammersoft. What should be done about File:Chipperfield Media Logo Transparent FINAL.png? It's licensed as a non-free logo which means it can't be used in Draft:Chipperfield Media Draft; however, it seems simple enough to be converted to "PD-logo" which means it could be used in the draft. The draft, however, seem to have very little chance of passing AfC in its current form, so I'm not sure if converting the file's license to PD would be of any benefit since there is at least at the moment seemingly no encyclopedic use for it. Any suggestions on what to do in cses such as these since I come across them every now and then? Convert to PD-logo and tag for a move to Commons which is better suited for hosting files not being used? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seasons' Greetings

    ...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Merry Christmas!

    Merry Christmas Hammersoft!!


    Hi Hammersoft, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
    Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
       –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)    [reply]

    DNR

    We are solving this at DNR. ConTenFir (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR

    You have been reported to the 3RR noticeboard. ConTenFir (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&oldid=817974539"