User talk:Hammersoft

Old content

Quick question on an image you removed.

In this edit, you removed a cartoon image of Wendy Thomas that had been used in the infobox on her article. I'm not very familiar with the NFCC policy you cite, so I was wondering if you thought that giving a rationale on the image for use in that particular article would bring it up to specs? L H M 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that she is alive, and the Foundation's stance on the use of pictures of living people, using the graphic in the infobox is highly problematic. There might be reason to use it in her article, but more properly a reference to the page where the image is used is more appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my thinking was that, because she's only notable for her use as that icon, that it might be more acceptable to use the logo than to use an actual picture of her. I'm not sure there's any real precedent, though, for a person being notable only for being the model for a logo. Jerry West is the current NBA logo model, but he's also notable in his own right. I'm not going to restore the logo or anything, I'm just kind of trying to think this through a bit. Best, L H M 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the only thing she's notable for, perhaps her article needs to be redirected to Wendy's? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Hs. It's a pretty big thing to be notable for. However, I can see your reasoning, and I may actually propose a merge and redirect at the talkpage, leaving the history of the article intact, should she do something to be notable in her own right. What do you think of that idea? L H M 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. She's kinda a WP:BLP1E candidate. She's not notable for anything other than being the basis for that logo, right? Are there are any other franchise owners in the Wendy's chain that are notable for being franchise owners? Alternative; redirect to Dave Thomas (American businessman). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the next course of action then, do you think? Is this a case where boldly merging and redirecting it per WP:BLP1E would be the best course, and then only if someone takes issue, opening a discussion about it? L H M 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Given her lack of notability, I wouldn't be surprised if nobody takes issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's done, per WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTINHERITED, redirected to the Wendy's section of her father's article. As I read through the W. Thomas article, there was no material that needed merging, given that everything she's notable for is found in her father's article already. Best, L H M 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Conflict of Interest

Regarding your post at my talkpage, 18:54, 12 July 2011. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I did not intend for any Conflict of Interest to arise. I have put a helpme and adminhelpme request on my talkpage in hopes that someone might provide me with directions or advice as to how to best proceed in this case. Your vigilance and advice are much appreciated.

Palladiainc (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to proceed is that if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia in ways not connected with Palladia, then create an account using whatever pseudonym you wish to use and proceed with editing things that interest you (other than Palladia). If you wish to contribute in ways that support your employer, then there's no opportunity for you to continue that work. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And... someone reverted it.

I've opened a discussion here about why the article should be a redirect. The only reason given in the reversion was "in my opinion she is notable", so I wondered whether I should just restore the redirect, given that one's opinion isn't enough to prove notability. I ultimately decided not to, and instead have posted that discussion. I'm thinking that if there's just one editor who obstructs redirecting it with the history intact, I may have to take it to AFD. Do you have any other suggestions? L H M 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd continue the discussion, and see where it goes. If it doesn't resolve cleanly, then AfD with recommended merge. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whaddya think?

How's this for a template?[1] Let me know if you have any thoughts, suggestions, etc. Something like this could probably be done by bot or tool, and if accompanied by friendly edit summaries and notices - which could be linked to the template - may eliminate 90% of all the opposition to NFCC image removals, both among newbies and the "image pirate" faction. I'm not adamant about any particular element in the template. I did design it so it preserves the entire image text: caption, size, specifications, location, etc., without removing anything. Someone can go back later and review it to either delete the use entirely if it doesn't fit, or fix it if they wish. By replacing the image with a question mark it encourages people to notice and help out. Others who want to do lots of image work can patrol the category and run through it. Meanwhile, the image isn't used in the article so the article becomes NFCC compliant. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification. The template is meant to handle removals that are mechanical in nature, or if done by inexperienced editors who want another set of eyes. If an editor makes a specific judgment that a particular image use is just noncompliant as here,[2] they would just go ahead and not ask for a review. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things;

The template strongly reminds me of the debate surrounding the use of File:Replace this image female.svg, which 2/3rds of editors agreed was improper.
I doubt it will cause any beneficial effect. We've had a number of editors and bots who have attempted to engage others to do the necessary work, without success. Full blown removal tends to cause anger among some editors, but it is effective.
The template implies there's a review going on. There isn't.
Such place holders shouldn't be left indefinitely. If it's going to be used, it has to be grouped by date.
Just who do you notify? This is one of the hardest things to do. The uploader? Often enough this isn't the person who added it to the article. So, you have to identify who added it. But, maybe the person who added it isn't the right person afterall; maybe the use of the image changed. Or maybe that's not enough either. Maybe someone edited the image description page, and changed the pointer for a rationale to an article where they wanted to use it (yes, I've seen this), eliminating a rationale for where the image was used. Maybe the image had a rationale for this use, but somebody re-license tagged the image, which was later re-tagged as non-free but the rationale not restored. So who do you contact? It's a mess. Notifications on talk pages of articles doesn't work; we tried that, again with people and bots, without success.

--Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions.

I see the discussion here and here. Some of the arguments apply (ugly, causes clutter, WP:SELF), others don't (sexist, trying to force something on editors by adding to articles that don't yet have images). The size and shape of the replacement could be changed, or it could even be made invisible or replaced by a simple "image removed" link. My rationale in leaving it more or less in place was that it gives the best notice to editors that something happened that they can fix. The counterargument is that it doesn't serve our real audience, the readers.
I'm thinking and hoping it would have 2 beneficial effects. First, it will result in more rationales being added where appropriate and fewer outright removals. Second, I really think it will reduce the pressure on people deleting images. I wouldn't have objected at all to the wisdom of Delta's edits if he had just left some kind of trace that I or others could go through short of going down his edit history. Anyway, one way to test it is to try it.
Agreed on the date thing. I could definitely add a date tag. Let me see how to do that. There isn't any time sensitivity from an NFCC point of view because the images default to being removed, but we shouldn't leave article clutter.
The notification question is a problem no matter what system you use. The constituency of an image being in an article is ultimately the reader, but as most readers don't edit, it falls on the body of editors working on an article or in a subject area. Using my Fairmont San Francisco example, I've tried to keep that article in reasonable shape. It doesn't really matter whether I was the one who uploaded the logo, added the (incorrect) copyright and fair use templates, or added it to the article. It's all the same, I just want to make sure the article is in good shape. I noticed the removal because I saw beta's edit show up in the article edit history. But if it weren't on my watch list, I would have no practical way of knowing that there used to be a logo but now there isn't. The new template would add it to a category, so if I cared about NFCC patrol I could now tell.

So, I think I can address some but not all concerns. Maybe I should just try it. I can be the guinea pig and take any heat for a sample of, say 100 or 200 images. We can see what happens after a week or two, and barring a big drama fest somewhere the worst that can happen is that I have to go back and clean them all up at the end of the test. If it gets a good reception I can make a formal proposal - nothing required, just an option for people to use if they want. If not I'll just drop it. Do you know where I can find a list of 100 or 200 image uses still missing rationales? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After being raked over the coals yet again for NFCC 10c enforcement, my creativity in solution finding is rather low at the moment. I hope you'll forgive me an in depth review of this. As to the list, Wikipedia:Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale lists the first 2000 (alphabetically). There's probably about 4000 total missing rationales entirely (which is what this report attempts to show). There's another report with ~6000 that are missing a rationale for the use where they are used (there's probably several thousand overlap between the two reports). The first report should help you. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. This has been a big help already. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Decorum

Hi, Hammersoft. Delta no longer likes to keep my comments in his talk page. He has removed my answer. But I don't think anything good can come out of this discussion, since none of us can convince each other. So, I guess it is goodbye for now. Piece. Fleet Command (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Hammersoft, I am willing to have a fair view of Delta. So, tell me: What good things has he ever done? Fleet Command (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You approach having a "fair view" by taking a stance that presumes he's never done anything good? Wow. He's performed in excess of 100k edits here over a span of nearly six years. If he was even 1/100th as disruptive and bad for the project as his detractors think he is, that figure alone would be impossible to attain. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually closer to 130,000 edits. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Really? I think such a person should have been an administrator! But he throws out all his hard-earned respect with a couple of non-collegial edits? Very odd!
And as for my starting from a negative point of view: That is true; but the point is that I have started! Don't you prefer me to at least start to try to understand him? Or do you think he deserves that I retain my negative opinion of him for the rest of my life? Fleet Command (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheaterJ logo.gif

Dear Hammersoft, I saw that you deleted the image "TheaterJ logo.gif" from the article "Washington, D.C. Jewish Community Center" -- and think it was because the non-free use rationale in the image description only applied to one article, "Theater J." I could not figure out how to add another article to the article section, so just added a note in the "other information" section indicating that the same non-free use rationale that applied to the first article should apply to the second. Please look at my change in the description section and let me know if that is sufficient in terms of undoing the deletion in the JCC article. If it is not, please help me learn what more to do! Thanks!! NearTheZoo (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific non-free rationale for each use. There are instructions on how to make an additional rationale at WP:FURG. You can edit the image description page and add the additional rationale after the existing one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about your WP:NFCC #10c edits

Hi there, I have a comment about the method in which you conduct WP:NFCC #10c edits. Your current modi operandi is to remove an image from an article and move on to the next. I took a look at your last day's worth of edits and noticed that at least half of the images you removed were cover art from singles or albums that appeared in infoboxes. It would appear to be more beneficial to correct the WP:NFCC #10c error on the file page than to remove the image form the article altogether. These cases are very easy to confirm and require no more than a single edit, the same number you would otherwise do. While some editors may eventually correct the error and restore the image to the article, some errors are never fixed and images are deleted. This needlessly damages an article's quality. I just wanted to bring this to light in order to save yourself and other editors any unnecessary frustration that could be avoided with no additional work. – Zntrip 07:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However that does nothing to inform and get other editors involved. By removing files that are non-compliant he addresses the issues with NFCC and then forces those who use NFCC to ensure that they are complying with policy on that particular file (and they will hopefully review their other uploads too) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Δ. Also, this is already answered at WP:10CR, which is linked from the edit summary. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why getting other editors involved and informed should be the goal, and besides my point is that in some cases other editors don't get involved and images get deleted. Non-free images aren't "owned" by other editors and often no editors monitor the non-free images or the articles on which they appear. I was also specifically referring to cover art that appears in infoboxes. It's pretty easy to tell when an image is cover art, which is almost only used in infoboxes, and the solution always seems to be to add a fair use rationale template. I'm bringing this up because I believe this is a much more efficient way to address NFCC #10c issues. – Zntrip 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people are involved in NFCC enforcement. There are tens of thousands of NFCC violations of various types across the project. Increasing the number of people who use NFCC correctly reduces the amount of work that NFCC enforcers have to do to keep the project in compliance with our policies and guidelines. So no, it isn't more efficient. I'm not very concerned if images get deleted or not. Album covers are readily available all over the Internet. Besides which, any file deleted here can be undeleted by an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wales national basketball team

Hi Hammersoft. Your edit here at Wales national basketball team removed the article subject's logo. Please advise what was the problem (I'm guessing it was with the fair use rationale). I'm quite happy to do any work necessary to fix it, but could do with either some clues, or a link to a perfect fair use rationale for a logo, so I can see the difference between one that was done correctly and this one. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FIXNF ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of arbitration request regarding User:Δ

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Δ and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]