Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hammersoft: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:17, 14 May 2010 editAlpha Quadrant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers39,980 editsm →Why do you do this← Previous edit Revision as of 16:25, 14 May 2010 edit undoHammersoft (talk | contribs)Administrators91,235 edits →Why do you do thisNext edit →
Line 301: Line 301:


If you need anymore examples let me know. --] (]) 16:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC) If you need anymore examples let me know. --] (]) 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 ] #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 ] and the ]. 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 ]. 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. --] (]) 16:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:25, 14 May 2010


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)

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)