Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hammersoft

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betacommand (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 11 July 2010 (→Please don't edit my userpage without my permission.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:56, 11 July 2010 by Betacommand (talk | contribs) (→Please don't edit my userpage without my permission.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Re: userspace image

Hi! Thanks for commenting out that picture on User:MrMoustacheMM/Year of the Pig (EP). I had no idea that wasn't allowed, but now that I'm aware I won't repeat the mistake. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Hammersoft. Hope everything is well. It's come to my attention that you have been refusing to discuss your edits to certain files in regards to whether they are Public Domain or copyrighted/non-free. If I'm not mistaken, this has cumulated in several ANI posts and a large amount of bicker with other users, borderline trolling, incivility, and even harassment for the past year. Now it's nothing personal, and I do hate to tell you this, but several users (myself included), believe that some of your recent behavior has been out of line with the norm. That being said, if you continue to edit disruptively, refuse to discuss your edits, or troll, a RfC bearing your name will be opened. Now the goal is not to have you blocked, let alone banned, but rather bring it to your attention that some users aren't happy with what you're currently doing. However, please bear in mind that such measures will be generously applied if a solution/compromise cannot be reached. Consider yourself warned. Best wishes, FASTILYsock 07:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  • You've cited no specific edits. Also, referring to an anonymous "several users" is not helpful. Another user recently attempted to do that, claiming lots of people were contacting him through e-mail. When challenged, nothing was produced. I don't mean to claim there aren't such users, but rather that I should have the privilege of addressing their concerns, and can not do so if I don't know who they are. You accuse me of in general refusing to discuss whether an image is PD or non-free. This is blatantly and provably false. I'll here cite File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as just one of many discussions I have been involved in.
  • As to what I believe spawned this latest, debating with BQZip01 isn't worth my time and it isn't worth the aggravation I find myself experiencing. That's not an insult to BQZip01, but an assessment of me. I think blocking someone for assessing themselves would be rather unprecedented. As to the e-trade logo; you're absolutely correct in so far as I refuse to discuss my edits with BQZip01. At every opportunity that he and I have worked together, it has ended badly. I have taken great pains to avoid BQZIp01 as much as I can. Nevertheless, I didn't avoid discussion on the e-trade logo; I actually took it to a wider forum, as can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:NFC#File:ETrade.svg_free_or_non-free.3F precisely because I am desperately attempting to avoid interaction with BQZip01. Me debating anything with him never results in any positive progress. Again, that's not an assessment of him, but an assessment of how he and I interact.
  • As to my general behavior; there are plenty of people who do not like me. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to be liked or disliked, and whether someone finds me personally appealing or not is of no concern to me. The area in which I primarily work, that of NFCC policy adherence, generates a lot of animosity. If I were to place value in the hate filled opinions of others in regards to my edits towards NFCC compliance, I would never EVER touch NFCC issues. A rather large swath of people hate that policy at a minimum. I know of only one person...one...who thinks I do not edit in compliance with policy in this regard. I've been personally attacked innumerable times for conducting work in this arena. Not once has any of those people been blocked for their attacks. Not once. Yet, I remain a strong defender of the policy. Further, if you look through my diffs in detail, you will be very hard pressed to identify even a single attack against any registered editor here on the project. I do use sarcasm to make my point at times. I often poke significant holes in the arguments people use. I am often direct in the words that I use. However, I do not attack anyone nor would I. I have, of late, backed off in my use of sarcasm knowing that it deters from the overarching goal. I think you will find that too in reviewing my edits over the last few months.
  • If there are particular behaviors you think are in error, I'm welcome to hear them (and please provide cites). But please, do not present me with an anonymous "several users", and please do not misconstrue hatred for my in-line-with-policy actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit my userpage without my permission.

It would be appreciated, thank you.


TheClerksWell (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been harassing people as well. Please get something better to do in your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are following the rules, why are you making so many people frustrated and angry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You remove peoples pictures in your spare time? Get a life.

TheClerksWell (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


I seems you have started to harrass me to, I shut off Dashbot because it was removing an image FEATURED on an article page, obviously in compliance with all wikipedia policies...
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide a diff? Dashbot is normally correct. β 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

...is vacuous? Sorry, couldn't resist :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, errant keypress saved prematurely...) I presume that you're talking about, in general, the conflict between you and BQZip01 (talk · contribs) described here and in the RfC section, above, on this talk page. I commend your desire to try to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the other editor is willing to participate then there's a chance this may work, and I think that you might get help through the Mediation Cabal, but both of you will have to be willing participants for it to have any real hope. The folks at MedCab frequently say that their service is just for content disputes, but there's no hard and fast rule there against doing conduct disputes. I'd suggest, however, that you need to try to get at least a tacit agreement from the other user before listing it at MedCab so that he won't feel like it is being thrown at him. The part that you may find difficult to get MedCab to do is the "have outside third parties weigh in saying one solution better than the other or coming up with their own solution(s)," but I'd give that a pretty good chance if you and the other user can agree to that being part of the solution in advance of going to MedCab with it. Even if you can't get help at MedCab, per se, you might find a Cabalista who would be willing to take it on individually. Good luck with this, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Having a : instead of a | in that {{User|BQZip01}} really messed stuff up there for a second. Sorry about that... TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No worries :) Easy to fix. When I first saw it I was completely confused on what happened :)
  • Back to the point; maybe I just don't understand the dispute resolution process. My current understanding is that before getting to mediation of any kind, you need to have had an RfC that didn't resolve things. I'm trying to avoid all of the heavyweight process involved in achieving what I think is an amicable resolution. My intended proposed resolution of the conflict is for both parties to (1) not follow the other's edits and make any sort of changes at such places based on following edits, (2) recognize that we have areas of overlap in interest but where we happen across each other to minimize communication between each other as much as possible, and (3) not post to the other party's talk pages unless it is an emergency. The problem here is BQZip01 does not find this solution equitable. I doubt he'd agree to mediation. I'm not looking for a bludgeoning tool against him, but instead an outside, uninvolved, unbiased opinion that says my proposal makes sense and wouldn't it be a good idea to follow it, or another solution I haven't imagined that results in the petty disputes between he and I going away. There's a few bazillion diffs out there in this dispute, and I'm quite confident both of us can generate enough evidence against the other to 'prove' our cases. But that's not what I'm after. I'm after the dispute going away. I don't care if I'm wrong or right, I just want it to end, and I don't want to have to go through an excessive, long, drawn out process to achieve what I think is pretty blatantly obvious at this point; BQZip01 and I interacting is going to create drama. So, come up with a solution to stop interacting in as much as possible. I can't seem to find such a solution in the WP:DR process. Thoughts? Thanks for your time in any respect. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I really don't have the time to become more than superficially involved in this (though I have the sinking feeling those are words of doom), but would you mind if I talked to him about this? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Not having the time to deal with this is one of the reasons I'm looking for a lightweight solution. I really, really, really don't want to be playing the part of a lawyer here, trying to wend my way through the judicial process, for what I think is blatantly obvious. If you are volunteering, and can spare the time, you're more than welcome for my part. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let me give it a whirl. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See my Proposal to BQZip01. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by way of explanation and some minor disclosure. The "tea-sip" PS to that proposal refers to the fact that BQZip01 makes prominant reference on his user page to having attended Texas A&M University; I attended their ancient rival, the University of Texas at Austin, so I had to give a gentle jab on that point. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If you've not seen them, take a look at last night's posts at BQ's talk page and please respond there. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Certificate of Mediation on my talk page. (If you've seen it already, please take another look as I've just added a new subsection about my further participation in your dispute.) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Venue for discussing non-free images?

Greetings! I'm involved in editing an article (Ariana Grande) that has an image that I think has an invalid rationale for free use, because the image is replaceable. Right now, it's tagged with {{db-norat}}, even though the user who uploaded the image keeps removing the tag. Is there a forum where the legitimacy of that rationale can be discussed, or should I just send it to Files for deletion, and have my reason for deletion be that there is no valid fair use for the image on Misplaced Pages? I know you've been around the block a few more times than I with respect to non-free images, so I'm hoping you can point me to the discussion forum that keeps hiding from me when I look at WP:Non-free content and related pages. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review is the page you seek; you tag the image and then there's discussion on how good the rationale is, or if it is replaceable, etc.. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
And Hammersoft, thank you for jumping in and responding in this case! —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images in discography articles

Hi, Hammersoft

I noticed that you seem to be interested in paroling non-free image usage and have recently dealt with non-free images in two of the discography articles to which I had attended.

I wonder if you could please analyze the following articles and deal with non-free images in there according to standing policies and best practices. Thanks in advance.

Fleet Command (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Working backwards;
That's it for now. More when I have time. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Your efforts are highly appreciated. Please feel free to go straight forward and nominate any violator you can attend to for deletion. I'll aid you with the nominating as soon as I shake off the current matters I am attending to now.
Note that we should not participate in each other's AfDs (Administrators consider it an act of bad faith) unless there is something very tide-turning to say; even when we do that, we should make it clear that we are acting both in league and in good faith. Thanks in advance. Fleet Command (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I updated a couple more above. I don't see the need for AfDs here, but even if there were AfDs there's no reason I can't participate in anything you participate in. You asked my advice. You didn't ask me to vote, or to vote in any particular way. There's substantial cause for WP:NFCR review here. I do recall there being some discussion resulting in a supposed compromise allowing on album cover per discography (and these are discographies, regardless of title or categorization). But, the compromise is flawed and violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, as I've argued before. As with many fair use issues, the compromise allowing fair use in the first place per WP:NFCC is the compromise. We don't layer on more and more compromises to that compromise. Plus, the "compromise" isn't codified anywhere. If the supporters of the series of articles want a "compromise" they need to get consensus to change WP:NFC wording to support it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we need more discussion on that point (since I had some language), and at least RFC it. I'm going to restart that discussion on NFC only because we need clarity either way on the issue. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Carnival Logo

I noticed you removed the Carnival Corp logo from the template, as per non-free restrictions. I was just wondering, if I was to produce my own image of the logo, which is also the Carnival house flag as opposed to a TM, would that be permitted? Crazy-dancing (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC(s)

So which way do you want to go here? You and BQ combined, or each separate? Can I delete the combined one, even though it seems to be properly certified? If you really think they should both be combined, make your case and the rest of us will try to make it work if it seems appropriate (to heck with whatever "rules" there may be). If you have decided that separate RFCs are better (and I'm fairly sure yours is coming pretty soon), then let's nuke the combo RFC. Let me know. Franamax (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer they were together. I fail to see the point of separating the two RfCs. They are deeply intertwined and revolve around the same central issues. However, BQZip01 refuses to participate in the joint one. I'd be happy to go with what you think is best. Regardless, I do not want the joint one deleted at this time. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

rationale for book cover image

So what kind of rationale would be acceptable for use in a Signpost book review on the book? Oh, what on earth is this I see in the fair-use policy? No. 8:

A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Tony (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem is that The Signpost is in WP space, not article space. The NFC page is tagged at the top: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
A critical review in The Signpost on a book about Misplaced Pages is clearly, by "common sense", an "occasional exception", is it not? Tony (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
So the logical extension, now I'm familiar with the matter, is here. Tony (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
And Item 8 of the policy says "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." On what basis were the two pages already listed in the exemption category, if not "common sense"? Tony (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The two exemptions there have to do with, I believe, bot related activities. Regardless, there was no discussion I'm aware of that granted those exceptions. Even the main page of the project was not granted an exception. There was heavy debate about that. Long standing practice had been to permit non-free imagery on the main page. But, that practice has been invalidated. The best place to plead your case for a revision to the policy is at WT:NFC --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC book cover images

I have undid your edits to the page. These images are justifiable under fair use under number 8 of the exact page you tried to use to disprove fair use.

The rational I believe you tried to use to make it non-fair use would be that of it being a picture that shows multiple parts of a series at once. However, there is more than a little bit for each book and because basically all of these books have no page of their own, the only option was to add the pictures and put them on that page.

If you want me to remove them, please put explicit rational on my talk page instead of just linking me an article that I have seen many times.

Salamakajakawaka (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • WP:NFLISTS 3a. only refers to if there is a substitute image that takes up less space I.E. if there was a picture with all books in a series in one picture. There is no "tabular format" phrase in which you speak of in that document. In fact, the tabular format was only used in the article to keep the paragraphs and images from running into each other in a way that would no longer make sense.

The publications section is not a bibliography either. It gives an overview of IUPAC as a publishing company and talks about non book works as well. These books are not merely listed as would be in a bibliography, the context of study is included. This makes the paragraph about the books and allows for free use images to be used.

"The general practice is that if (X) is notable enough (see Misplaced Pages:Notability (books)) to have its own article, then it is certainly notable enough to have a cover of the book on that article. In that vein, Placing 20 covers on an aggregate article violates WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"

Not true. The books are used directly in context as to who they should be used by; aka a publishing rationale. There is no reason for one to assume that a book does not fit notability requirements just because it doesn't have a page. In their respective fields, these books are extremely notable. These books should have their own pages, they just haven't been made yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamakajakawaka (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Ok, understand that we do not need a book cover of every book published by this entity in order to understand the topic of the article. Whether you want to call it a biography or not, it is a list of books produced by the company. There is minimal commentary on each book. Further, three of the images contain elements from another copyright holder source, amazon.com. There's no rationale to justify that this article needs to show the covers came from Amazon, and this infringes on Amazon's rights. Lastly, what makes this article unique? How is it different from almost all other articles that we should allow a special exception for it that would permit this mass overuse of non-free media in order to understand the topic of the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand about the amazon ones and they will be taken care of. If you look, they were not added by me. I will take care of them. I honestly forgot about those in the shuffle of things. However, I do not see the special exception you talk about even being needed. Even if it is a section with a list of books, there is not just books there. It is an article about their publications at large. It is necessary for people studying the fields to know what the book looks like in order to identify it. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If there were a separate article for a given book, I could see it. But here, we have but two or three sentences per book. There's almost nothing. Again, we don't need 20 covers for people to understand the organization. This is an article about the organization, not its publications. My point in exceptions is that you're asking us to accept this usage when such usage isn't supported elsewhere. Why? What makes this article special such that it has to have these book covers? I went through many other articles in Category:Chemistry organizations, Category:International scientific organizations and Category:Standards organizations. I couldn't find any other article attempting what this article is currently attempting. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The number of sentences per book averages less than 5. Yes, I counted. 11 of them have 2 or 3. Precedent? Look at the three categories I pointed you to. Can you find any other article in those categories attempting what you're attempting by including the images? We frequently keep non-free images off of pages because of too much use. That's why we have Template:Non-free. That's why less than .1% of our articles have more than four images on them. What makes this article special such that it should be in this less than .1% when similar articles in the categories I noted aren't? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I also refer you to this, where User:Ruhrfisch notes "The images of the various books are all copyrighted and thus must be justified under WP:FAIR USE to be included here. The official policy here is WP:NFCC and I fail to see how any of the book covers shown meet the policy. The logo of IUPAC is OK, the logo for the International Year of Chemistry is probably OK, but how does seeing the book covers increase the reader's understanding of IUPAC?" --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose ruhrfish has a point. I will remove them as seeing that there is a general concensus against me that the pictures don't add to the content of the article as much as I thought they would. They don't break any rules, but it would work well in the refinement process of making the article more concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamakajakawaka (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Pure Appl. Chem. cover.jpg

I suppose standards change over time. That the image has survived three or four years shows that that statement used to be good enough. I'll tweak it a little, but I won't really care if you IFD it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Golden Team

With reference to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Golden Team images that I nominated here, do you know what code to add to the other images I added under the same nomination so that each image has a deletion notice. Unfortunately we don't have a group nomination process like they have on the commons. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I tagged all of them for you. I also added nrd to all of them, as they were all missing fair use rationales. I recall there being a method to nominate several images together, but I don't remember how. What I did in this case was subst'ing the original, copying the resulting code, and then supplanting the text that pulls the filename with a hard address to the deletion discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly what I wanted to do but had no idea how. I must study what you actually did. Thanks for the fast response. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I missed that. You are good! ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo tag

Hello, man! Please, help me. Regarding this (Here)

This logo i created from logo found here (Informator o radu) but this is logo that is used by Heritage Institute of Serbia, and it is Serbian motive from medieval times. I supose that it is derive work, but how should i tag it? :) Thanks in advance! :) --Tadija 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I can't even begin to read that source :) But, if that is the source of this version of the image, you should note it on the image description page. Also, again because I can't read the source, I can't verify if the image is in fact from medieval times. If it is, it's way out of copyright and should be marked with Template:PD-old. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, i will tag it, and find source about it, and place it on talk page. Also, i created this version, original is just white. Thanks! --Tadija 20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Creating this version by changing the colors creates a derivative version, and is not free of copyright because you release your changes. It still has copyright from the original source, if it is copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's old. It is from Miroslav Gospels, so it is out of copyright about 700 years ago! :) :) Thanks, anyway man. You are helpful. -Tadija 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FU/NFC

I just want to say I appreciate your work; you do a thankless job and get abuse hurled at you from the community. I mean, what makes you so committed to the project after all they do to you?

On one of your userboxes it used to say wikipedia has the largest collection of copyright images on the internet. Does this mean you think wikipedia's Fair use policy is silly and should be changed to that of wikias?

Kind regards --Drogonov 07:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • No, rather the opposite. The Wikias are actually dancing a thinner line. They are for profit, and some of them contain enormous quantities of non-free imagery. I think it's a matter of time before a very serious lawsuit is filed against one or more of them. As for this project, it's pretty simple. We are a free-content resource. This makes good reading, as well as as Misplaced Pages:Veganism parable itself. The idea that we can be a free content resource, while at the same time being the largest repository of non-free media on the Internet I find to be both absolutely hysterical and also incredibly depressing.
  • Did you know that we have more than 100,000 album covers? The people attempting to defend our purpose here lost that battle. Identification alone is sufficient to include an album cover. At this discussion, we're seeing just the beginning of the flood of non-free sound clips. We're at just under 5,000 files there, but it's going to explode. Virtually all of these clips and album covers have virtually no notability to sustain their existence here. They're here for one reason, and one reason alone; identification. That level of acceptance criteria permits a flood of non-free media to exist here. It's like someone standing in the middle of the onrush of water during a massive dam break, and that person saying "Could you hand me a wrench please?"
  • Most people in the world do not understand the free culture movement. I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the editors here have never even heard of it. Combine this with the reality that most people either don't understand copyright law (ex; "I found it on the Internet, so it's ok to use", "It's free advertising for them", etc.) or simply don't care about copyright law (witness the huge numbers of people that have used various pirating schemes). We're left with a body of editors that are largely opposed to WP:NFCC policy.
  • The middle ground approach that is being taken here is unsustainable. We now have over 357,000 non-free images. It grows by ~100 per day. That's not much per day, but it's inexorable. The amount of non-free media as a ratio to the number of articles is getting worse. The current ratio is 1:9. But the pace of non-free uploads to article creation is 1:6.3. Day by day, edit by edit, we're losing ground on our free content mission. It's like a moving continent. We can be aware that it is moving, and we know that someday it's going to collide with another continent, but there's not thing one we can do about it even though we know it's going to cause catastrophe. Except, we're not dealing with geologic time here. Eventually, the burden of non-free media will cause a backlash or the project will divest itself from its free content mission.
  • As to why I keep on in the face of so much animosity; I'm mature enough to recognize that it is quite absurd to place any weight in the personal opinions others here have of me when I have never met any of these people and never will. Their relevance to my life is zero. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Salutations

Thanks for catching the nonfree images on my userpage. I am aware of the policy, but was too busy being creative and having fun to be scrupulous about copyright. Another reason why free culture is important, I guess. Anyways, I find your response to Drogonov above thoughtful and clear. I wish you would put it on your user page, instead of the chaotic mess that's on there now. I also wish you wouldn't use the <div> tag to wreck havoc on the formatting of your user page. Someone less savvy about computers might worry that their browser is malfunctioning or that Misplaced Pages has been compromised.

All that said, however --


The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your highly valuable and vigilant enforcement of WP:FU. Ori.livneh (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah crap! Now I have to update my "only one barnstar" userbox. Dagnabit! muttermuttermutter ;) Yes, I know my userpage is a chaotic mess. I just don't have the genes for something more artistic, and a purpose statement extracted from my response to Dragonov above would be, well, bland. It might do to have the WP:UP policy more restrictive about what you can and can't do vis-a-vis div tags on your userpage, but they're all the rage right now. You're welcome to make the page pettier if you like, just maintain the essence of what I say there. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

an exploratory question

I would like to explore an area with you concerning Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/BQZip01.

I myself had not realized the existence of the issues involving free-use/fair-use of images. In reading through the WikiProject Fair Use pages, I see Wikipedia_talk:NFC "This project page is part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to monitor and reduce non-free content on Misplaced Pages, prevent copyright infringement, and further our free content mission." I understand this to mean activities in the areas of removing copyrighted material, creating truly free-use images and reducing fair-usage images.

I believe your passion (..."there are plenty of people who do not like me. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to be liked or disliked,"...) brings you close to WP:DRAMA in issues concerning the third activity (reducing fair-use images).

So, I would like to ask you a question: rather than actively deleting fair-use images, would you be willing to work with tags ( like {{fairusereview}}, {{fairusereduce}}, {{fairusereplace}}) for a period of time? Misplaced Pages would still benefit from your judgement and you would be at a greater distance from emotional trauma.

Best regards, jmcw (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • To Template:Non-free review; I already use it on occasion where appropriate, to help determine if the use of the image is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I'm already involved at Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review, where I'm involved in ~20% of the conversations.
  • To Template:Fairusereduce; I'm not involved in anyway with that effort, and do not have much interest in size issues of images.
  • To Template:Fairusereplace; I'm already extensively using this tag. I periodically spend some time perusing this list of Biographies of Living People for fair use images being used for depiction purposes and remove them (ex: . That's a never ending task. That list has always been over 5000 since I asked Betacommand to make it. There's a large number of false positives, but 1/3 to 1/2 are not.
  • As to deleting images: I'm not splitting hairs here, but to be clear; I am not an administrator (nor do I have any wish to demote myself to one). I can not delete anything. I do mark things, using templates (such as your suggested Template:Fairusereplace) which make images subject to deletion by a reviewing administrator. In the past, I haven't always done the best job to notify uploaders of images when I tag with with Template:Orfud, Template:Nrd, Template:Nld, etc. but over the last few months I've taken greater pains to notify uploaders (ex: ). BQZip01 maintains that tagging images with problem tags and notifying uploaders is disruptive behavior on my part. It isn't, and I'll quite happily defend myself before other editors on this point should he raise it again. I also note that I've come across several other editors who have performed similar edits (and BQZip01 was aware of them), and BQZip01 has not taken them to task about it...only me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess I did not express myself well with the phrase 'delete images'. or is what I meant :'remove images from articles' would be better expressed. jmcw (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Why should I halt this behavior? In the Portal:Peshawar/Selected article/12 case, it's a blatant violation of WP:NFCC #9. There's no wiggle room on that. In the Trúc Bạch Lake, it's an editorial decision, just like thousands of other editors here make. It's a pretty blatant case too, though I grant not as cut and dried. It's covered by Misplaced Pages:NFC#Images_2 #5, and is in the same vein as debates about the flag raising on Iwo Jima image, and the Afghan Girl image. This is simple overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I make no argument that this behavior is incorrect. It is the passion and ever nearness to WP:DRAMA that I comment. Remember, there are other editors who can do this work. You could work in other areas of Misplaced Pages. jmcw (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but I fail to see any drama in my removal of a fair use file from a portal, or a fair use file relating to two sentences. If there's drama, it's in the hands of the people who oppose the WP:NFCC policy. If you want testament of that, have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content, specifically current items #5, #6, and #8. I've been thanked by people for my work, and ArbCom itself even recognizes that WP:NFCC enforcement is an area where people are routinely attacked. Can you point to something in particular that is problematic about my edits as opposed to WP:NFCC enforcement in general? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we are getting somewhere. I believe that your work is very valuable, that your behavior is correct and that the people who attack you for enforcing WP:NFCC are frustrated (and their behavior is not the best of Misplaced Pages). From this discussion, I begin to think the issues lie in what you could additionally be doing, to be a better Wikipedian.

I will rephrase my original question: for a period of time, would you be willing to modify your work habits from a) remove image from article b) comment to the user and c) let the orphan bot delete the image to A) comment to user, B) respond to user, C) remove image from article and D) let the orphan bot delete the image. Your good work would continue, the frustration of others could be reduced and the others might learn about free-usage concepts.

Thank you for your patience! jmcw (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm still not understanding where what I am doing is creating drama. I think if you feel this is the process we should be following, let's start a discussion at WT:NFC. Your idea may generate more drama, it might generate less. I would be curious to see how the larger body of editors who engage in this sort of work would respond. Personally, I would find it very difficult to follow, if not impossible. I mark things as I find them. In the structure you recommend, I'd have to keep track of everything I found that needed attention so I could return to it at a later date. This would at least double my effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • This conversation is not about changing the way all the editors work. My interest here is in reducing the stress around your work while keeping the good quality. My questions come down to "would you be willing to do a bit more work to improve the quality of wiki life?" jmcw (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And here's a related case; User:Shaakunthala/Asia-Pacific Telecentre Network. Three times DashBOT removed a non-free image from the file. Three times, the user restored it. That's troubling. Worse, DashBOT was shutdown by the editor, even though DashBOT was acting properly. He also removed an orphaned notice from the image, even though the image remained orphaned. I've undone all his actions in this regard and left an explanation message on his talk page. He's a new editor, and he doesn't understand yet. I've explained the situation to him at User_talk:Shaakunthala. If you think there's something I could do to improve what I did, I'm open to suggestions. DashBOT performs about a dozen or so of these removals a day now. Since 2 February 2010, DashBOT has been shut down 16 times. Not once was the shut down for an actual failure. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Firstly, you and DashBOT are correct and the inexperienced user is wrong. Now try seeing it from the newbies perspective: something came down out of the sky and blasted his work. No comments on his talk page - no welcome message. This thing kept doing it without an explanation ( or an explanation he did not understand.) So he shut it off - (from his perspective) why not? You made a good-faith effort to get an exception - commendable. At the end of the process, you write the first message to his talk page explaining what has happened. The problem is solved but do you think his frustration is gone? jmcw (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm curious as to why there were no messages on his talk page. DashBOT usually handles that. I'm still investigating. I don't think his frustration is gone. But, in my opinion the frustration isn't caused by what I'm doing; it is in line with policy and it is how multiple, multiple editors around here handle things. I think the frustration is caused when we encourage editors to start articles in their userspace in a sandbox, and then we rip content out of it. I'm still very much of the opinion that we should be able to tag developmental articles for a time period of 14 days or even 30 days, to allow an editor to develop the article unfettered by bots, etc. Mind you, DashBOT isn't the only bot out there that does things easily construed as disruptive to a new editor trying to work on a developmental article. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I found out what happened. See User_talk:Tim1357#Improvement_for_DASHBot_NFCC_image_removal_task. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I want to sidebar here a bit; I don't write policies here, though I'm sometimes involved in discussions about rephrasing them. I enforce policies in concert with best practices being conducted by people doing similar work. There are many times when I disagree with a policy, or the best practice that enforces it. I don't act on my disagreements. I act on what is best practice and policy. Less abstractly; I don't like the policy that comes down hard on developmental articles. But, an editor shutting down DashBOT is (innocently) causing more serious problems. I explained the situation to him, and we move on. The editor has now had multiple opportunities to educate themselves about our policies. This is how it is done. If how we are doing it results in frequently frustrated users, then we need to develop a better "how it is done". I tried to do that, and failed. Shutting down my edits in this arena isn't going to fix the problem since my edits aren't the problem; the process is the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I wanted to see if I could bring you to a new perspective about your role here but I don't want to get on your nerves<g>. Its been nice chatting and I've learned a bit about fair-use/free-use images - thanks! jmcw (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • You're not getting on my nerves. Very few people do, and certainly not for engaging in a cordial conversation. I think this conversation is interesting, and I wouldn't mind pursuing it further into a philosophical discussion at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello!!

Hello there...i have a question..asking you because you seem to know about copyright for images...I am the portal guy!!! I have uploaded File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946 crop.jpg that is a crop of File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946.jpg. My question is this allowed here -->Portal:Ottawa/Selected biography/5, I am from Canada and this is in the public domain here....but since wiki is hosted in the USA can i use it??? or even crop it like i did??? ....Moxy (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • It's uncertain. Commons hasn't made up its mind how it wants to handle such images. I think if Commons is hosting the image, you'll be ok. But, your derivative work is hosted here. I'd move it to Commons. I see it's on the 5 page now, but I'd upload the image to Commons and make sure 5 points to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done ..File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946 crop.jpg ........... :-)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for taking the time to inform me in such a good manner ...Moxy (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Free use images

The rules for using images seem a bit esoteric here on Misplaced Pages. For example, you have said that the use of the Twins cap logo is not to be used in userboxes, yet I notice that you have said nothing about the New York Yankee's cap logo used on User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises Yankees. Please explain the difference to me because I don't see it. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The Twins cap logo is a non-free image. The Yankees image is free. It's that simple. Look for the red "C" on any given image's description page. If it has it, it's non-free. That's the case with the Twins cap logo. Non-free images can not appear on userpages, such as userboxes, our non-free content criteria #9. Hope that helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that cleared it up. I appreciate your help! Rapier (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A Helping Hand

this + this = Meatpuppet. Garanam (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

JPMorgan Chase

Please explain where in the fair use policy is there a restriction on using an image in more than one place. There is a one article minimum not a one article maximum. I don't think you can say it is overuse for the logo to appear on the main article and the article of the company that acquired the business. These are historical logos of now defunct organizations and are there to better identify the historical constituent businesses. Given the fact that each historical entity has a sub section it seems appropriate to have the logos there as well as any main article about the defunct business. They have been there for two years without issue so if you are going to remove them I would like a better explanation. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Sure. The basic underlying principle is minimal usage, as listed at WP:NFCC #3. We don't want to use fair use images unless we really must do so. In this case, we have a section referencing multiple other entities for which there exist main articles about those entities. The fair use images exist on those other main articles, which obviates the need to replicate the images on the JPMorgan Chase article. If we have a logo of a company, we do not use the logo of the company on every article where the company is mentioned. Instead, we point to the article about the company. Point #5 of Misplaced Pages:NFC#Images_2 covers this as well. You might wish to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:NFC#JPMorgan_Chase.23Acquisition_history. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you do this

I checked your contributions. You have not made a single edit where you are improving a article. You patrol articles for images you think are copyrighted or look copyrighted and remove them and/or tag them for deletion. And this is good but according to wikipedia policy userpages are supposed to only be edited by the user unless it is offensive, in which case the user is supposed to ask the user to remove the image/content. You just go to peoples userpage and delete what you don't like claiming it violates policy. Some images do but this one is not one of them. The image I am using is from Memory Alpha. It to is under fair use because paramount pictures has star trek under copyright. The image, however, in a screen capture of voyager. This image is all over the place (google it) I don't know who originally released it but it is now public domain. See the links below for a few of them.

  1. Here
  2. Here
  3. Here
  4. Here
  5. Here
  6. Here
  7. Here
  8. Here
  9. and of course here

If you need anymore examples let me know. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Whether it exists in all those places or not is immaterial. It doesn't affect the copyright status of the image. The image is a screen shot of a copyrighted work, one that Paramount has not released rights to. This image being used on userpages does violate policy. It is clearly marked as a non-free image. As I've explained, the use of non-free images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted by our policy at WP:NFCC #9. There's no wiggle room on this. If the image is marked as copyrighted, it's not permitted to be used outside of the article namespace. In fact, we even have a bot running around doing some of these removals of non-free content from userpages. See User:DASHBot and the approval for this function. I think you're understanding of what is public domain is inaccurate. An image does not become public domain because it is published on the Internet in multiple places. In order for copyright to not exist on a work such as this, produced in the last 20 years, the rights holder must specifically release those rights. Paramount has not done so for its Voyager series and retains rights. Therefore, this screenshot is encumbered with rights that can not be waived by you, me, Memory Alpha, or any other site on the net. As for modifying your userpage without your permission, please be aware of Misplaced Pages:User_pages#Images. No warning to you or permission from you is necessary for myself, the bot, or any other person to remove policy violating content from your userpage. As to my editing history, I'm sorry you don't like it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about Misplaced Pages:User_pages#Images. I did not know about this rule. I am very truly sorry for complaining about the changes you made to my page and for complaining that you flag articles with copyright violations. Doing what you do takes a lot of work and I am glad that someone likes to to this. I hope you will forgive me. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Sorry to butt in here i was just trolling (was about to take this page off my watchlist as all get added auto for me)...i was just reading what you said about a picture of a copyrighted image/logo ...Could i get you to look at this ' Hammer tell me if this is ok? ...PS your great!!Moxy (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedra Branca photo

I raised a question about the photo. I see that you have tagged it.

I haven't researched it completely but my initial thoughts are that it is not good to claim fair use. The picture is nice, no question. However, the honest thing to do is to provide a link so people can go to the government website to see the photo. Don't you agree?

If the picture is removed, consider adding an external links section and a link to the photo. That would make Misplaced Pages informative as well as honest. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Pedra_Branca.jpg

All we need to do is get a commercial sailor to snap a picture of the place. One of the world's busiest harbours is just a few miles away! I wonder if one of the thousands of people who pass by is a Wikipedian? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think adding an external link to the photo is helpful, and isn't common practice here. If we can't find or make a free alternative, then we host the non-free version under terms of U.S. fair use. If we can find or make an alternative, then we encourage that finding/creation. I've tagged the second image you noted, and updated the uploader's talk page. As to replaceability, given the sheer number (10s of thousands) of ships that go by this island and lighthouse every year, I'm sure that at least a few of them are Wikipedians. Singapore is arguably the busiest port in the world, depending on the metric used. Plus, there are more than 300 wikipedians in Singapore. All it takes is one of them to go on a boat out there and take a picture of the place. :) It is extremely rare to find a valid argument for a fair use image of a place if the place still exists as the article it is used on wishes to demonstrate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't a link become a common practice? The current practice now is to try to find a free use photo or for a Wikipedian to take a photo. If that doesn't happen, a user steals the photo and cites fair use. We should steal things very cautiously and give a link if we can't honestly claim fair use (shouldn't just steal and make up a flimsy excuse). It does no harm if we link stuff. Although, schools discourage or prohibit citing Misplaced Pages but schools generally accept it if students use Misplaced Pages to help them start to find references. By providing links, we help them and help Misplaced Pages follow the highest standards of ethics.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? If that date passes, will you delete the offending picture? If not, how can you be certain it will be deleted? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a reason

I shut off Dashbot because it was removing a "non-free image" which was actualy in compliance with all wikipedia image policies and featured on an article page. I would very much like you to explain why I should have left an explanation when the bot's page says to just turn it off rather than contact the owner, as it is easier. Nowhere did it say "leave an explanation at this place" or the like. I shall continue to shut-off dashbot when it removes the image without explanation until you explain yourself.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Please observe WP:NFCC #9. That policy says that we may only use non-free images in articles. I presume from your edits that you believe DASHBot is improperly removing File:Great Buddha Wonder.jpg from Talk:Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties? If so, DASHBot is acting correctly. That talk page is not an article. It's a talk page. We don't permit the display of non-free images on talk pages. The image is very clearly marked as a non-free image. Are you perhaps referring to some other removal that you feel DASHBot is performing incorrectly? If so, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, DASHBot is acting properly. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Oh... I'll have to check up on that. Expect to hear from me sometime this week.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

society

I would like to start a Misplaced Pages society of friendship. Just a desire for friendship and good editing are the requirements to join. Another condition of membership is that each member try to recruit 3 other members. I proposed that we call it the Misplaced Pages Club of Gloves. We are not socks, we condemn socks, we are gloves. We pledge to be nice to each other and do some good editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why?!

Why are the images on List of Ice Age characters being deleted, they are under the fairuse license. --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

They only say not used in any articles because you made it that way! So I'm revertinga all of your edits. --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal at WikiProject Star Trek

Hi Hammersoft, I have made a proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Proposal and thought you might be interested. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply (AQ)

Hi Hammersoft, I read your reply on B's talk page. I really don't want to the remainder of my time editing as anyones enemy. Therefore I propose to we shake hands and call it even. I admit, I made a mistake. I will remember to be more careful about the rules on images. On that same note, if and most likely when I make another mistake please don't bite me. No one is perfect, and neither are you or I. It may be my personal opinion, but I feel that your userpage comes across as rude. I might not have been as angry the first time I replied to your warnings had I not read your userpage. I was not trying to be rude, but after reading your page it made me feel like you don't care about other users. I don't think this is true, but that was how I felt. I apologies for being rude myself after reading your usepage and for making mistakes. I will do my best and be careful. I hope you can forgive me, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • There isn't anything for me to forgive you for; I'm not upset with you. There was a misunderstanding. I attempted to clarify it, and failed. That's why I went to WP:AN/I with it. I agree, everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes are fine; willful violations of policies are not. I think you're clear on the subject now, so I seriously doubt you'd willfully violate our WP:NFCC policy again. If you have questions about it, just let me know or ask around at WP:MCQ, WT:NFC, etc.
  • Regarding my userpage; I don't expect any one person to have the same reaction to it as everyone else. Some people have responded poorly to it. Some have found it funny. Short of not having a userpage at all, I can't control people's reactions to my userpage. Is it rude? To some people perhaps. Whether people respond to it in a negative way or a positive way, I honestly don't care. I'm not looking for approval or disapproval with my userpage. In fact, I'm not looking for approval or disapproval in anything I do on Misplaced Pages. In a sense you're right; I don't care about other users. Often "I don't care" carries a connotation of negativity. That's not the case here. It's neither negative or positive. It's not that I intentionally aim to anger people, or be rude. The areas in which I work often result in people being angry. That's the nature of humans; enforcing WP:NFCC usually involves removing what someone else has done. Very few people handle that well. Result; a much greater chance people will become insulting towards you. You did this yourself (relax; not trying to scrape scabs off wounds; just highlighting an example).
  • So, my userpage records some of the insults that have been levied at me. It also has a number of self deprecating entries. I was thinking last night that the table at the bottom of my userpage might come off as an attempt to keep track of the people I've annoyed. It isn't. If I religiously kept track of the insults people levied at me, it'd become a game for some people; 'how many times can I get on Hammersoft's stats table!' That's self defeating. The point of the table is to show that I've received insults across the board, and it hasn't stopped me. Though, bureaucrats and ArbCom have yet to insult me. I don't interact much with either group, so that's not surprising, but I don't suspect either of those groups to be any more immune to routine violations of WP:NPA. The work I do has remained more or less unchanged for a long time, yet the number of insults has gone down. I think the userpage has had its intended effect.
  • "Why don't you just report people who insult you?" you might ask. Good question. The reason is that civility on this project long ago got kicked to the curb and is routinely ignored. As one of my userboxes notes, I was once referred to as "the most ignorant and disrespectful editor" on Misplaced Pages. I reported it, and was told by an administrator that it wasn't a personal attack. This is not an isolated incident. I stopped reporting personal attacks, because WP:NPA isn't enforced. Look at the last 5000 blocks, only one had to do with civility and that was an arbitration enforcement. Yet, currently on WP:AN/I there's more than a dozen references to civility. Those might not be the best proxies for showing the lack of enforcement of WP:NPA, but it is telling. I was wasting my time trying to get enforcement of WP:NPA, and the personal attacks kept going on. So I kept improving my userpage, and it's had the effect I hoped for; less insults, at least so far as people casting such at me.
  • I hope that clarifies things with regards to my userpage. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I sincerely hope that we will get along. I will remember to be more careful. Oh, which reminds me, do you know where I could find a image for the Rick Berman article. The one I found you told me violated policy, something about no fair use images of BLPs if free ones are available? Thanks you, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No idea. I did a quick scan of flickr.com and didn't find anything. It's possible there's no free licensed images currently available of him. But, he is alive. Our policies presume that if a person is alive, a free license image of the person could be created. We don't use non-free content until free content is available. So, we just don't use non-free images of living people for depiction purposes. There are exceptions; for example famous felons on death row. But, Rick Berman wouldn't qualify for such an exemption. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Something one of you may want to consider if you find something on flickr that is potentially useful but not freely licensed is contacting the author and asking him/her to re-license the image under an acceptable license. The photo of Frank Beamer came from a Flickr user who changed their license for us as was this image of Bobby Knight. This photo wasn't from flickr, but it was an iconic photo taken during the Virginia Tech massacre that was shown all over the news media. I contacted the kid who took it and got him to release it under the GFDL. Some people aren't interested in talking to us, but a lot of them will let us use their images under an acceptable license if we ask. WP:COPYREQ#How_to_ask_for_permission has more information on seeking permission. --B (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Next time I make a image mistake like that, feel free to use WP:trout on me. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

DuquesneDukes.png

In what way does File:DuquesneDukes.png not comply with WP:NFCC #10c? The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale has been provided. Please reply on my user page. — AlekJDS 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Might as well leave it off the Duquesne University article, I agree. Thanks for your work. — AlekJDS 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Hammersoft, I created File:Galactic Quadrant.PNG today. Can you check to make sure I put it under the correct license? I think it is correct, but you know more on this than I. Thank you, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If I ever have further questions on images, would it be ok for me to ask you? --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting your input

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the invite. I don't have any knowledge of the material, so my input would be pretty limited beyond what I've already stated in the deletion discussion. Any further comments would probably be in the same line. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Love your page

I actually came here from somewhere else I was looking, you rock! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

@A930913 and Gfr soldier-activist pic: 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I came across this, and think that it's a ridiculous use of a template, and have nominated it for deletion. Meanwhile, I am tempted to blank it to avoid A93 enforcing their position in a content dispute by inappropriate means. Thoughts? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I was considering replacing the section of the article it is in with the contents of the template, but wanted to give A930913 an opportunity to discuss the situation. However, he appears intractable on the issue. I concur with you; this isn't how we use templates. I haven't read the discussions on the article to assess whether consensus exists for A930913's preferred version, but feel that's a moot point. This isn't how we resolve disputes. The template must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Fine, subst+blank sounds good! ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry

Sorry about the screwup with the fair use images at Portal:Horses. I haven't messed with portal editing much, got a little image-crazy. Thanks for the policy link. Montanabw 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Userpage

I can't take any credit for the poem it was all due to B00P (talk · contribs). I think that the majority of the increase in the population is due to immigration. We're the regional centre and have a large government presence. Also, in that time period the new health centre opened and brought in nurses and other technical staff, and some of those were married with children. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

But is it really non-free?

The non free screenshot license was something I just put on there because it seemed like the closest thing. That's a Wikia site. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I started the Wiki and am basically the only editor so far. 74.36.5.22 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
xD User:Daniel Christensen/] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.5.22 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As far as I know, Wikia sites are default CC-BY-SA licensed unless the specific site says otherwise. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yup I made all of those :D. So wait how are there any screenshots on here at all if it's that picky? Like to the point of what browser was used. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin

Hi! I responded to Talk:List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters#Fair_use_images_and_this_article - I think the best solution would be trying to further "consolidate" characters into different images, i.e. find images with instances of multiple characters. The reason why there are so many images is because the author, Watsuki, describes the visual/physical appearance creation and conception details of so many of the characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • In regards to the discussion, Jinnai proposed an ultimate list of images currently in the article that should be deleted. Would you mind going through and checking which ones need deletion and which ones do not? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I can look, but I doubt I can be much help. I don't know the subject. I know the article suffered from too many such images. Determining which images need to go is more appropriate to the people who know the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona Rugby League - non-free image

Does an editor need to create a specific non-free media use rationale, so that the image can be used on the FC Barcelona Rugby League article?

Thanks for your help,

Ymron (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much :)
Ymron (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep it up!

I see that many people are frustrated by your work, even though they may call it "blatant deletion", but I just wanted to let you know that you're doing a good thing. With 300,000 images wrongly licensed, I suppose it just takes one person to remind everyone of their wrongdoing. Keep your head high, my friend! EricLeb (Page | Talk) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sons of Admirals Logo

Thanks for clearing the stuff about copyright up, I wasn't quite sure. Half Price (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

HS?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit comment is odd as it is to an article, not to userspace William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you really want I'll review the edits but otherwise I'll just forgo a response William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're willing to reconsider you prior response, here's the diffs to refresh your memory:

  • My report to WP:AN3, in which I noted I had ceased editing the article, and was seeking assistance:
  • Subsequent discussion on your talk page:
  • Discussion at 2008Olympian's talk page (whom you also blocked, and later unblocked):

I did and still feel it was highly inappropriate to be blocking the person (me) reporting the edit warring, most especially when that person said in the report that he had ceased editing the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I still feel as I did at the time: being the person reporting the edit war gives you no priviledge. As an admin doing 3RR (note, BTW, I'm not an admin any more) I took a hard line on edit warring: if you broke 3RR without an excellent reason, you got blocked. I still think that is correct. OTOH I could perhaps have responded slightly more sensitively to your concerns. But that would not have affected the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocks are not to be used punitively or to enforce a cool down period. They are to be used to prevent disruption. Since in my report, I had already noted that I had ceased editing the article (and in fact didn't edit it for months after that), there was no disruption to stop. The block was inappropriate on that grounds alone. Further, I was enforcing WP:NFCC policy, which is an explicit exception in cases of blatant fair use abuse as noted at WP:3RR. Two different administrators subsequently removed the images on grounds of violating WP:NFCC after 2008Olympian restored them. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Two different administrators subsequently removed - yes, which was why you should not have broken 3RR to remove them. I'm sure there is a NFCC noticeboard for reporting such violations William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't break 3RR. I recognized there was an irreconcilable edit war going on, ceased it, and sought outside assistance. Instead of assistance, I got blocked when I was the one seeking assistance. It just made no sense. Since that report, I haven't touched that noticeboard because the apparent "assistance" I should expect is to be blocked. Your actions were arbitrary, capricious and lacked an understanding of the situation. There is no noticeboard for reporting NFCC violations. Regardless, I think we're done here. You didn't see the blatant error you made before, and you're not seeing it now. All I wanted was a recognition of the error you made. That apparently is impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hammersoft, if I'm not mistaken the current year is 2010. How many pounds of flesh are you still seeking from 2008? Franamax (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Zero. All I was seeking was a recognition of the error. People seek recognition of errors decades after events happen. There's no difference here. I'm not looking to see him blocked, chastised by anyone, penalized in any way, stripped of any rights he holds, etc. I was just seeking recognition by him of the error. If that's "pounds of flesh" to you, so be it. I don't particularly care. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, the point to me is that you didn't previously seek out WMC to resolve your lasting sense of having been done wrong (which may well have occurred, I dunno). Instead you waited 'til WMC came along in normal-course editing on a (apparently) different topic and decided to hold him up for ransom. Can you clarify for me how that improves the encyclopedia? And I've come across lots of people who would sooner cut chunks off their own body rather than ever admit they were wrong. :( Franamax (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify for me how I am any less guilty of seeking a pound of flesh than you currently are in interjecting yourself into this conversation of which you were not party to, not invited to, and have no relation to? I think we're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Question

I have never uploaded an image to Misplaced Pages, so I am hoping that you might share some of your knowledge to help me. I am working on a crime-related article in which I would like to include a 1970s FBI wanted poster of a fugitive; however, the best image I can find is located on a private/non-governmental website. Am I allowed to use this image freely, not at all, or are there certain restrictions I must be aware of or comply with? Thanks! Keep up the good work! Location (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • That depends. Don't you just love that answer? :) Seriously, it does. If the FBI wanted poster is in fact originally sourced from the FBI, them the private, non-governmental site does not have rights to it. The FBI does. The FBI, as an arm of the U.S. federal government, can not (usually) hold copyright on something they produce per (17 USC 105). If so, you can apply {{PD-USGov}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the speedy reply. It does appear to be a poster originally produced by the FBI, but I'll likely run it by you when I get to that part of the project. Thanks again! Location (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI regarding Cleveland Official Seal

I see that you've removed the image from the WikiProject Cleveland logo, (citing: Fair use images not permitted in templates, per WP:NFCC #9). I won't revert the edit, however, while I understand the citation you've presented, I don't think the actual file (er, image) description in this case was accurately listed within the 'fair use rationale' criteria by whomever uploaded it in the first place: this is a public seal of a city, without an equivalent (not unlike the official City of Chicago seal used in the WikiProjcet Chicago banner.

Here's the two images:


Like I said, there isn't really any difference in the status of the two seals -- they are both the official seal of a municipality, yet the Chicago seal gets a free pass due to it's file description (and I'd imagine the same criteria applies in the Cleveland seal case, but the uploader of said file perhpas didn't tick the right boxes). If you would (I'm a bit on the amateur side in the realm of file uploading and whatnot), please look into this for me. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • First, the City of Chicago seal was adopted in 1905. It is public domain by way of age, being older than 1923. This is useful reading for that. Second, there's no evidence the seal of the City of Cleveland is in the public domain. Cursory research shows it might have been adopted as recently as 2009. Without any assertion or reason to believe the image is in the public domain, we have to assume the image is copyrighted by the City of Cleveland. Therefore, it must be used under terms of WP:NFCC on Misplaced Pages. That policy prevents the use of non-free content on anything but actual encyclopedia articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, seriously? Under the usage rationale guidelines, I guess I understand the removal of the image from a template (which by 'I guess I understand' is to concur that I can read wiki-legalese, and I can see how it relates to what you've the pointed out)... but if the image is so sensitive that it can't be used anywhere else besides the main article for (I put it on the main page of the Cleveland Wiki-project attached to the city that said article is part of -- the intent wasn't to steal it for personal financial gain, which is ) then maybe the image itself shouldn't be permitted on Misplaced Pages... and interestingly, the exclusiveness of the usage guidelines in this case got me to thinking, so I went back and read a little closer.
I also suggest that you go back and look a little closer at the text of the City Code you cited, particularly subsections 105.1 and 105.3 -- the image in question is not the 'official seal' or the 'ceremonial seal' of the City of Cleveland named in the ordinance. If you don't believe me, I implore you to go back and read the description of the seal and you'll see what I mean. The seal we are talking about here is clearly a logo, and not not the official or ceremonial seal reserved for official documents only according to the ordinance. In short, the rule you're citing should be cross-exmined with the letter of the law you've presented. In short - the image we are talking about and the one that's described in the City Code (the same one the mayor keeps and/or is used for official documents... which echoes a similar code regarding the use of the Great Seal of Ohio) aren't the same. This is a logo, not the seal, for the City of Cleveland.
But forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo for a second, and get back to my original point -- it's just plain silliness that an image is uploaded to Misplaced Pages and then can't be used anywhere else -- it's either free or it's not. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be allowed on WP in the first place. You seem to be pretty up on all the fine print, so perhaps you can point that out to someone somewhere better than I.
Oh... and by the way, the text you deleted (when you rather aggressively deleted the thumbnail box instead of just the image) was mine and wasn't copyrighted. But I'll get over it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't care if it's the "official" seal of Cleveland or not. It is apparently owned by the City of Cleveland, and that's all that is germane here. If we don't have evidence that they've released rights to it, then we have to assume it's copyrighted. Whether it's a logo, seal, favorite icon, decoration, Friday afternoon whimsy of an employee, it doesn't matter. If we have no evidence it's not available under a free license, we use it under terms of WP:NFCC here.
  • We have WP:NFCC because we do allow non-free content here, but on a limited basis. This is because our mission is to provide a free content resource. We limit non-free content as much as reasonable to further that mission.
  • Lastly, anything you contribute here is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. Anyone can change it without your permission to do so. I'm sorry if that offends you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. BTW, way to crawfish right past the salient point -- you might not care if it's the "official" seal of Cleveland or not, but, yet, you cited an ordinance that wasn't applicable to this specific logo. In any case, I've sent an email request to the 'Mayor's Office of Communications' seeking expressed written consent from the City of Cleveland to use it and am awaiting a reply.

And lastly, citing a wiki-rule to justify your actions doesn't excuse you for being rude -- a sarcastic apology isn't an apology. Not that courtesy matters these days. If you aren't a lawyer, you certainly missed your natural calling.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • In seeking permission to use something, please be aware that getting permission to use on Misplaced Pages will not change the status quo here. Such permission is irrelevant. The logo would have to be released under a free license by the copyright owner in order to be used outside of actual articles here. You may wish to review Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for how to request release of copyrights to a specific work. I don't know what you asked that office, but if it was not a release under a free license reading that link will help you accomplish what you want. Any assertions of release under a free license will have to be confirmed by the m:OTRS team.
  • As for supposedly sarcastic apologies, I made no sarcastic apologies. I am sorry if someone else editing your work offends you, and that is sincere. If you have any other accusations regarding my conduct, you may wish to bring them to an administrators attention at this noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Try helping instead of just stomping on someone's work.

I was trying to learn to write Misplaced Pages articles, but the lack of tact that you used when you left your last message is enough to make me delete my work and leave Misplaced Pages for good. I don't know all of the rules. You could have suggested alternatives. This makes me think that your intention is just to "put people in their place" NOT make Misplaced Pages a better resource. Miaettia (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Discerning my intentions from a one paragraph posting I made to your talk page is fraught with problems. I have no intentions of putting anyone in their place, and every intention of making Misplaced Pages a better resource. I'm aware you were not aware of our stance vis-a-vis fair use galleries. That is why I pointed you to the relevant guideline. I'm sorry that pointing out the relevant guideline to show you why the gallery was removed offended you. There is indeed a myriad of policies and guidelines on this project, and new editors are cast off into an unknown sea of rules. Frankly, it sucks. But, it is what it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

If you decide to go around editing other people's user pages on their behalf () then it might be a good idea, out of common courtesy alone, to leave a note on their user page explaining why you have made changes, and under what authority you have made those changes. In fact, a note along the lines of "Please change this image because..." would have been a good place to start. •• Fly by Night (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Several people have made recommendations that people ask before editing someone's user page. The reality is that you do not own your userpage, and content that violates our policies can and will be removed by others without prior notification. There's even a bot running around taking care of some of these violations, and it does not ask permission to make these edits. The edit summary I provided is almost always sufficient to clarify the issue to those people violating that policy. If it isn't sufficient, and people restore the WP:NFCC violating content, I usually address the misunderstanding on that user's talk page. Also, please see Misplaced Pages:UP#Images where it says "Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning" Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and re this edit summary: Thank you for your compliment that I need to learn some manners and that I'm rude. I appreciate it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You're quite right, I don't own my user space. Just like I don't own my personal space. But you wouldn't, or at least I hope you wouldn't, dream of invading my personal space without permission. Technically you were totally within you rights to do what you did, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't rude and rather annoying. •• Fly by Night (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Your personal space does not include your userspace. I would never dream of invading your personal space. What I am doing is not rude, and the edit summary pointed you in the direction you needed to go to understand the policy. As I noted, if further clarification was needed I would have provided it. I'm sorry you were offended. It was not my intention to offend you, as opposed to your edit summary's apparent intention to offend me (which failed) by calling me rude and lacking in manners. You may wish to read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I accept your apology. I'm sorry that you see my criticism as a personal attack. It wasn't personal; it was just an expression of an opinion based on you conduct. •• Fly by Night (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Telling someone to "learn some manners" is not an expression of opinion of someone's conduct. It is indicating that person is lacking manners. That is a personal attack. I don't expect, want, nor am I asking for an apology from you, or even your agreement that it was a personal attack. I frankly don't care, and see no point in further arguing about behavior. I want no part of it. I do want you to read and understand WP:NPA, if for no other reason than your own personal edification in the hopes that you will not run afoul of that policy in the future. If you do not place non-free content outside of the main article namespace again, it's fairly unlikely we'll run into each other again. Goodbye, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Stop Trolling User-boxes

It would be respectful if you stopped trolling peoples user-boxes. What a sad existence it must be to remove images from user-boxes all day long. Do you gain some kind of power high? I don't understand what motivates you to act like a drunken sailor on wiki? Why are you the way you are? And please...don't say "because I respect the rules of wikipedia...blah...blah...blah." You're a disturbed individual. Thank you for your precious time. I hope I didn't keep you from removing images on someones wiki. Your time is oh so valuable! --Suplemental (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't keep all of them. The point is to discourage people insulting me (and it's worked well for the most part), not to keep track of all of it. There's a bunch more. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) I thought the drunken sailor comment was cute, which is why I added it. Had a hard time finding a picture of a drunken sailor though (for the userbox above the table). The best I could find was a simulated drunken sailor. Oh well :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "What do you do with a drunken sailor, what do you do with a drunken sailor, what do you do with a drunken sailor, earl-eye in the morning? Have him purge non-free Wiki-pictures, have him purge non-free Wikipictures, have him purge non-free Wikipictures, earl-eye in the morning." (And if that song is under copyright, please consider the above fair use as parody and duly rationaled with my addition of the second verse.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the image off my subpage...

Thanks! I wasn't aware that was a policy, so I'll be sure to avoid it in the future. When I actually make the article I'm working on live, I'll re-add the logo. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I notice you do a lot of fair use image clean-up around here. How do you find the images that are non-free? Do you just go through images to check where they're posted, or check all the newly-uploaded images? Anyway, I think it's an important job, I might help out some time. Since returning to Misplaced Pages, I really haven't done too much actual editing, but I do like helping out with some of the more "behind-the-scenes" stuff. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a report run every day at 20:00 UTC that shows all non-free files that are in use on something other than an actual mainspace article. This is the report. Prior to this report's existence, it was real hit and miss. It was just what you stumbled across. Help in this arena of fair use compliance issues would be most welcome. However, you should understand upfront that most people who attempt to enforce policy in this arena coming under scathing attacks from other editors here. The section here on this talk page right above this one is typical. You have to not care about the personal insults. I don't, in fact I find most of it funny. Some people have burned out trying to enforce WP:NFCC policy. There's lots of other ways to help with NFCC enforcement. For example, this report shows articles with an unusually high number of non-free files. Such usage isn't generally supported, and there has to be strong rationale behind the mass overuse of many of these pages. That sort of work too is just as likely to get you insulted. You're not going to win any popularity contests conducting work in this area, and if you ever want to be an admin I'd suggest becoming an admin first then doing enforcement. Doing this work guarantees you'll never be an administrator, because too many people will hate you for what you do (even if it is right and perfectly in line with policy). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Back end work in general, you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Database reports. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hammersoft. You have new messages at Smaug123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Arab League

Regarding the display of non-free images on this page which I've been fighting DumbBOT over already; as it's intended to be used for figuring out which of them are copyright violations and which are not, I believe that this use qualifies as exempt from the policy in the short term. Do you disagree? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was really hoping to convert the whole page into a gallery today to make it easier to sort the images for copyvios; thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the bump. I missed this. If you want to get an exemption for this page, the appropriate place to ask for it is WT:NFC. However, I doubt it will succeed. The policy at WP:NFCC #9 notes that non-free images outside of the main article namespace should be linked, not inlined. Concerned parties wanting to review the images can view them by clicking on the link. While the policy does provide the possibility of exemptions, in practice there are none. Witness this list. That is ALL the non-free content usage outside of the main article namespace as of 20:00 UTC yesterday. All of those violations have been removed, save one which has an unclear status (and it's not, in any case, on an exempted page). Fighting with DASHBot is not the way through this. Please seek an exemption at WT:NFC. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of Image

Regarding the removal of the logo on the future TRF page, I cannot see how this image was removed as I have presmission from the the people are TRF to use the image. Could you clarify why was it removed. I may have also worked out you may be a cretin also. Thanks Welshman25 Welshman25 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshman25 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  • When you can figure out how to communicate with people without resorting to personal insults, I'll be happy to discuss the issue. Until then, goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bellin Run Logo

Hello, I am not trying to be specifically beligerant with puting the Bellin Run logo on my wikipedia page. I work for Bellin, and I have their direct approval to use this logo. However, I understand that there are channels to putting things like this on a wikipedia page. I have tried to understand and be compliant with the non-free logo usage, however, I must just not understand the rules. Every time that I restore the image onto my wikipedia page, I genuinely tried to square it away with the rules. If you could help me understand how this process can proceed, because it is the logo for the Bellin Run, and is very important that it is used for an encyclopedic nature. This logo is irreplaceable for the wikipedia page to be complete, because it is the only image that can non-verbally express the Bellin Run.

Thank you,

Market Development

userspace image

Sorry, must have missed that part of the Wiki rules. Thanks for pointing it out. I commented the other images out. Lawyer in training (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hammersoft

Can you look into this user's userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Duke53
I believe he has violated some of the image rules in which you are familiar. Thank you.

--63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything glaringly wrong. The only potential problem is the sourcing of File:Garment1.jpg. Tineye returned more than 30 results for the image, but it becomes a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first. Other than that, there's nothing problematic that I see in terms of copyrights and image use. Is there something in particular that you think is problematic? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Garment1 image is what I was concerned about. Are you sure there are no problems with that file? Thanks. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't guarantee there are no problems. It's a question of which image came first, the one here or the 30+ ones out on the net. If it came from the net, what were the original rights? Hard to decipher. You can post the image on WP:PUF. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments needed

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.
Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.
Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll pass in general, but you can feel free to pass this on to the editor you mentioned; if the article remains at it is, it will be put up for deletion again, and will most likely get deleted this time around. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Hammersoft. I will pass the on as you say. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Following over a week of comments by multiple editors, with only one dissenter, I've made the change at Spider-Man. If you'd like to nominate Fictional history of Spider-Man for AfD, I'll support. I'd do it, but this has been such a long, grueling process, I don't have the wherewithal right now...1 With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sudden revelation

For all you Hammersoft talk page watchers :)

I've just had a sudden revelation. According to the edit count on "my preferences", I've just crossed 16,000 edits today. Of course, I felt it as it was happening. I felt uplifted, enlightened, a break in the clouds appeared and a ray of sunshine shone down upon me and the voices of wikiangels on high spoke to me, blessing me with the everlasting fruit of cluefullness. I was such a newb when I only had 15,999 edits.

According to this pathetic demonstration of idiocy, I am now a "Most Complete Tutnum", whatever the hell that is. Still, I haven't demoted myself to an administrator, reviewer, rollbacker, autopatroller, edit filter manager, accountcreator, or any other 'level'. Therefore, it's highly likely I'm out to kill the project, in need of a life, stomping on other people's work, lacking common courtesy, trolling userboxes, a disturbed individual, and a cretin (all of these things have been said of me recently). I'm sure I'll be magically cured of all of these things once I become a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia.

Talk hard, and rise up and stab at them with your plastic sporks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But you should be reveling in the new Cigarette Burn which has been added to your Book of Knowledge... How dare you try and buck the system! :-P VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I had never heard of the movie before. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Non-free content and User:Trikster87/Userboxes/Former Boys Brigade

Sorry! Ill avoid it in the future but one question; what else could I do? Trikster87 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Saltburn Miniature Railway

Greetings Hammersoft,

You recently removed a non-free logo from Template:Saltburn Miniature Railway. However the rationale you cite for doing so is a guideline, not a policy. Its "in a nutshell" includes this: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".

The template in question is unusual in that it is for use in only a single article (Saltburn Miniature Railway) and acts as a shell into which several other templates are included. One of these Template:Infobox UK railway contains the logo_filename= parameter. Given the way these established templates operate, should this not be one of the common sense exceptions? -Arb. (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  • WP:NFCC is policy, not a guideline. You are possibly confusing it with WP:NFC, which is a guideline which includes a transclusion of the policy. Non-free images are not permitted in templates, and there's no really no wiggle room on that. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct about the confusion. Shrugs. Will work around it another way. -Arb. (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

stop reverting my edit

your so fucken gay get a fucken life your fagot or go get laid or something FGaribay (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Correcting your humor, that should be "You're so fucking gay. Get a fucking life. You're a faggot. Go get laid or something." Regardless, thanks for the humor! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Jeez! Sorry! But I need those images. OK, what liscence does it need. What kind of if thats what your talking about dude? If you read my userspace it will say i know how to use this site but make mistakes! Sorry kid! If you tell me, Ill re-upload it or find another one and write down the list of licensing its needed. Trikster87, 10:29, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • The issue is those images are copyrighted. There is NO license you can upload them under which would make them compatible with a userbox. They belong to other organizations and you do not have rights to them. Neither does Misplaced Pages. Therefore, we have to use them here under terms of our WP:NFCC policy, which forbids their use on userpages. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Twenty20

Dear Hammersoft,

Iv been repeatedly using the logo of the Chennai Super Kings in the Twenty20 article for a variety of reasons.Let me tell you, the Indian Premier League is the largest domestic cricket tournament ever.It has a wide mass publicity and massive revenue with players all over the world taking part.In fact it even surpasses the World Twenty20 Championship itself.But there is nothing much mentioned in this article excepting a few lines along with other Twenty20 leagues which are significantly inferior.So i hereby felt that the Indian Premier League will get a better propaganda(rightly it deserves especially in this article) if one of its team logos were used in this article.

As for the image, I have no other choice as there are only a fewer images uploaded based on this article.

--A.arvind.arasu (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The propaganda value of the image is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages and its purposes. The logo in this usage is not significant, and fails WP:NFCC #8. It's used in a section containing no discussion of the team or its logo, making it fail WP:NFCC #8. It also fails WP:NFCC #10c for lacking a rationale for this use, nor could a rationale be adequately produced; we don't accept "propaganda" as a rationale for including fair use images. I've removed the image again, and ask that you please stop restoring it. If you disagree and think this usage should be permitted, then please take the issue up at WP:NFCR. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • But is'nt there any other way of using the image in the content, now that you say that another rationale cannot be produced?

Colton Harris-Moore

The image you added to the infobox is not property of the FBI. Though they are using it, the rights Colton Harris-Moore has to this image have not been transferred to the FBI. That image is a derivative of File:Colton_Harris-Moore.jpg. The image on Commons has been marked for speedy deletion because of this, and this image was in fact already removed from the article earlier today. Please don't use it again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. There was no intention of reverting your removal. I was updating the infobox from an earlier edit with other information. KimChee (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoever posted it earlier has replaced it with a screenshot of the entire wanted poster. Thoughts? KimChee (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from WRFEC

Maybe if a large number of people are unhappy with the policy, the policy itself should be reviewed. Or alteratively the authors of the policy should review your actions to see if you are interpreting the policy the way they intended. If policy changed would you change your actions? WRFEC (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The authors of the policy are the community at large. The policy was written in accordance with consensus. If you wish to report me for violating this policy, you are welcome to do so at the incidents noticeboard. I believe I'm acting in accordance with the policy, and see no reason to stop acting in support of it as I have been.
  • If you wish to see the policy changed, the best place to initiate that discussion is probably the non-free content guideline/policy discussion page, and also place a link to that discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy).
  • If the policy did change, then of course I would modify my actions as appropriate to the policy.
  • I'm sorry you are irritated by the implementation of this policy; but it's reality. We do not accept non-free content when free content exists or can be created. That is codified in our policy at WP:NFCC #1. That policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It's quite clear. The Foundation has laid out that images of living people used for depiction purposes are almost always unacceptable. This has been laid out at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy which says we "may not allow (non-free) material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." If you wish to change that policy, you should contact the Foundation. Contact information for them is located at Foundation:Contact us. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)