User talk:Hammersoft: Difference between revisions

Where do we go from here?

Masem/Black Kite/J Milburn/Seraphimblade,

I would like to have a conversation among the people who feel the logo usage across season, rivalry, and game articles is inappropriate. I placed a plea at for help at WP:AN but I'm already seeing signs of it erupting into yet another debate, which will be fruitless.

For me, the crux of this is that no rational argument can be made that using a fair use image more than a hundred times, or even possibly several hundred times, counts as minimal use. We're being asked to accept this by the proponents in the RfC. What the proponents want is directly at odds with what Wikipedia wants, with people saying things like "Wikipedia should focus more on delivering information than worring about copyright no one cares about". This sort of thing is unsupportable. Yet, the proponents count it as support for their position. It just isn't rational.

We're at an impasse. If anyone takes action as a result of the RfC, there's going to be a war over it. We saw a war erupt at The_Game_(Harvard-Yale) to push the logos on (result; page protected in a version without the logos). We saw a war erupt at 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game to remove the logos, with current status of no logos and no protection. The status quo is not acceptable for what should be obvious reasons. As one of you (I think) suggested, we need a modification to the guideline to layout the handling of this issue. But, the guideline change will never achieve consensus, and thus will never make it into the guideline.

ArbCom won't take the case; they don't handle such disputes (BQZ's objections not withstanding). Mediation would be ineffectual; there's no middle ground on this, no compromise position that could satisfy everyone, and mediators aren't charged with making decisions anyways.

A decision needs to be made. Once made, administrators need to be at the ready to enforce that decisions through warnings and blocks if necessary. That's my view.

Your views? Where do we go from here? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are three things I can see to do:

• Try to get an uninvolved admin to determine the consensus. Unfortunately, I think very few admins are completely unbiased (either way) in how NFC is handled, and this is a rather critical decision to be resting on one admin (as if the use is allowed, I can see a slippery slope of other cases that we've previously disallowed like discographies to become allowable again).
• Try to go to ArbCom. I did probe to see what ArbCom may be able to do, noting this is not a behavioral issue (at the present). Unfortunately, I can't tell if ArbCom would take the case or not, though I do like the fact that if they do, we've got more than one person deciding the fate of the issue.
• Get some members of the Foundation to examine the situation to determine if the use is appropriate per the free mission. This seems like the only route to get an authoritative answer, and should they say "yes it's allowable", then, while I think it's the wrong decision for the purposes, I would definitely abide by it; of course, if they say "no it's not", we've got what is needed to assert their removal. While Mike Godwin could be party to this, I don't think its a legal matter (and his recent statement on logo galleries confirms this position), but at least 2 or 3 more members would good in asserting what adherence to free content is WP seeking. --MASEM 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• To the first suggestion, it's a hell of a burden for one administrator to take on. While we might be able to find one administrator who is uninvolved in some way (though doubtful), I don't think we're going to find one that is uninvolved and willing to take on the burden of such a huge decision. To the second suggestion, we can try ArbCom. The answer to any unrequested request is 'no'. Might as well try. I don't think they'd accept the case, but it's guaranteed they won't accept it if we don't ask. To the third suggestion, I once polled the Foundation on a related issue. The response I got was: silence. I don't think the Foundation is going to get involved. In part, this is because they don't want to have a hand (I think for legal reasons) on what content is actually on the project. I'm willing to help craft out an ArbCom listing if we want to start one in userspace before posting. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the ArbCom way is the "best" way for now, since at worst they don't take the case, if they do, we have a binding decision (hopefully). I would go ahead and start crafting it though it's going to be a little wonky; I'd make sure to be clear it is not a behavior issue (though likely the named parties are those you list here and the ones outspoken on keeping the images like OrenO, 2008Olympian, etc. (Though you can mention that attempts to remove the images have led to minor edit warring, but without resolve, could lead to large scale ones). --MASEM 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have extensive time for the remainder of the day to begin this. But, I'll start the page anyways. Done. See User:Hammersoft/rfar, though right now it just contains the template. Even if we don't end up submitting to ArbCom, it may be useful to develop this to fully describe the situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • My concern is that not enough people are conversant enough with our policies on fair-use and the Foundation's position to be able to make such a decision. As I said, the very fact that we a having a straw poll on a policy is ludicrous enough. Any change to our fair-use policies can't be policed by a head count of users who are involved in such a niche set of articles. My position is clear at the moment; unless there is a community-wide consensus to change WP:NFCC, then I will continue to enforce it; if that leads to RFC/U or eventually ArbCom, then so be it. Black Kite 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So you're proposing going ahead with removing the logos from the season, rivalry, and game articles? This will surely start a war. I've been trying to avoid that route since it will start a war. However, if there's no other way for ArbCom to accept the case, maybe that's a way of handling it? I really dislike that approach too. Maybe approaching ArbCom in a pre-emptive way, noting that a war will erupt if enforcement is attempted. If they refuse to accept, enforce? This is dicey ground no matter how we proceed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you forgive my intrusion here. I actually agree that the proposed usage would be decorative, but you seem to be taking this to another level. Warnings and blocks are not necessary to resolve the impasse and I don't think Mike Godwin would waste his time on this issue. If it appears that consensus is impossible at this time, perhaps you should seek a compromise rather than an absolute ruling. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is for images on per-season articles, it's all or nothing, there is no compromise position. --MASEM 19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus we've already seen edit warring on this on the limited scale where actions were taken. I'm presuming there's going to be a huge war if there is an attempt to remove the images. I think it's a fair presumption, given the divisive nature of the RfC, past history, and the overall heat of the debate. With that presumption, it's logical to conclude that warnings and blocks will be necessary to enforce whatever decision is made. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in despair about this poll. People are arriving and completely missing the point (even administrators) and it isn't helped by the rather biased way the whole thing has been presented. This is not something that can be weighed up in a single line question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Frankly, I think the poll should be scrapped, but removing that is a sure-fire way to irritate people who would be happily after blood anyway. The people at ArbCom are reasonable, and they are willing to actually view the issues and listen to the appropriate arguments, rather than jumping to conclusions after reading the title. If somehow ArbCom were to accept this, it's fairly clear which way it would go, and it is fairly clear that if this whole issue was to go to ArbCom after the inevitable edit war (which I am now seeing is going to happen if the logos are removed...) providing removing users had not been attacking anyone, blocking anyone on the "other side" or protecting their version of the page, ArbCom would support the removal. For now, let the poll play out- it's not going to achieve anything either way, but it may as well run its course now it's on the flaming "centralised discussion" navbox. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• So what next when this RfC dies off again and there's no consensus? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Myself and Hammer have worked out the initial statement for an ArbCom case, User:Hammersoft/rfar, which would be great if the others addressed here could review and makes sure all the key points are raised. I think it is important we present this as a stalemate issue that cannot be resolved in the usual channels due to the content, and thus the case is presented as unbiased as I think "our" side (those wishing to remove the images) can make it; since others can add to it, I'm not worried to make it perfectly unbiased but enough to not make it sound like we're whinning and forum shopping and instead that there's a serious point we cannot resolve. I don't think with the RFC still running we want to start this but if the RFC winds down to the last few days with the stalemate, then we should go ahead with this. --MASEM 18:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. I emphasized in my latest diffs why we feel the need to take this route; (2) the status quo is not acceptable and (3) an edit war will erupt if action is taken. Masem, you already noted (and I emphasized) that (1) the burden is too great for one administrator to reasonably make. I think we need to do more work here, and the "statement by party 1" probably needs to be retitled to something along the lines of details of the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for the next step

The RfC has run its course. It's been live for more than a month, and has twice now gone into quiet periods. Of late, it is now been almost a week since significant commentary was added. The last six days of edits resulted in this, just removing the open RfC tag.

It's clear from the RfC that no consensus exists on any substantial point. There was a large majority of people feeling the logos should remain on the team's pages, but that was not part of the original discussion on the RfC.

Our options are:

1. Leave the status quo.
2. Approach ArbCom to make a decision.
3. Apply lack of consensus as the decision to remove.
4. Approach mediation.

All of these options have problems. Only approaching ArbCom offers the (albeit slim) chance of definitive resolution. That's my thoughts. Yours? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove the images from all articles but the team articles. That means year, game and rivalry articles will lose their logos. If anyone kicks up a fuss, point them to the RfC- clearly no consensus to keep the images, therefore they should be removed. If they want to request mediation, so be it. If they get ratty (revert warring, attacks) take it to ANI. If all that still fails, then ArbCom. Anyone else got thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the proponents of the logo have frequently insisted that lack of consensus does not mean the logos should be removed. This is where the edit war will erupt. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hammer's right that if we remove based on "no consensus" it will start up all over again. There is another issue we have to bring into the possible ArbCom and that is along the lines of "when the reason to retain a non-free image is challenges and reaches no consensus, the default action is to remove the image", because while that was never really asked at the RFC, I can tell that there's no consensus on that point either.
• I suggest to move forward is to announce on the RFC page and on NFC that this RFC basically resulted in no consensus and give it a few days to see if anyone majorly disagrees to that, and that the next step will be to see if ArbCom will help. (proper dispute resolution and all). At worst, ArbCom may not take the case, at which point we need to engage the Foundation directly. Pending all that, we may need to figure out how to reduce the issue to the barest metric and get a global poll going. I think the key here is the concept of "minimal use", does it apply per page or for all of WP in general? --MASEM 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Approaching the Foundation will result in nothing. I've tried on related issues. They are always silent on such issues, and I think it may have to do with DMCA. I've posted a request for input from ArbCom on how best to proceed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Bit_of_a_conundrum.3B_help_requested. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How about trying to convince everyone to replace the fair-use images with free-use images? There's a list starting at User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos. Or better yet, pitch in and start swapping them?--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a practical solution. That would make a lot of presumptions about the threshold of originality for the logos, and not every school logo can be de-non-freed in that fashion. This will create a schism between some articles that have free logos and schools without any logo, which will encourage editors unaware of the issue to add the logos back. It is strongly recommended per WP:FLAG that the logos, free or not, not be included just because they can be. --MASEM 12:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But these are infoboxes, not prose. The WP: Manual of Style (icons) speaks to icons in infoboxes as an appropriate use: "While it may be appropriate to use a flag or seal as the principal image in an infobox for the organizational entity it represents (for example, the FBI), in most cases these uses have been superseded by the introduction of infoboxes that have specific fields for flag and seal images," as with the infoboxes at issue.--2008Olympian^chitchat 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um, my talk page isn't another forum to discuss the merits of logos in infoboxes on X page. --> That away, please :). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, and this is biased, I am not concerned with how Wikiproject College Football decides to handle the articles vis-a-vis free content. It's not an interest area of mine. However, if we have a firm ruling on how to handle non-free content, then articles that have had editors influenced to add non-free content against the ruling will have them removed. We've seen this in a number of other areas. I'm confident we can maintain the articles free of non-free logos if that's the decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Two arbitrators responded for my request for input on how to proceed. One said for a formal response to file an RfAr. I wasn't looking for a formal response. The second recommend formal mediation. That seems to ignore the mediation efforts that User:BQZip01 engaged in which was mentioned in my request to the arbitrators. Regardless, it seems apparent this will not get onto the arbitrator's plate until formal mediation is conducted. I think it's completely unlikely to have any success. There really is no middle ground, and the decision is too big for any one admin...plus mediation isn't supposed to decide things anyway, and we need a decision. I guess you have to bang your head on EVERY wall before moving forward :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to do mediation, just that we've done enough attempts at resolution to get there. (The current date linking case went from RFC to ArbCom, as a case in point). Since we can point to the month+ long RFC and the discussion before that, I think it's clear we've tried something, and its not going to work, plus this is exacerbated by the fact that's its an all-or-nothing solution, there's no middle ground to work towards. At this point, I think filing the formal report to ArbCom is the best solution to move forward. If they don't take it, we can then try mediation but I really think that won't help. --MASEM 15:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I concur with your assessment. I may not have effectively communicated that assessment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Bit_of_a_conundrum.3B_help_requested. Regardless, Vassyana specifically recommended mediation. I'm not sure we're likely to get the case accepted without attempting formal mediation in this case. Vassyana seems to think there's middle ground. You and I know there isn't. I've long held that any argument that makes the logos unacceptable in rivalry articles makes them unacceptable in specific game or season articles, and vice versa. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go ahead with ArbCom, but I wouldn't be happy to be the one actually putting the case forward. Masem, if you're willing to lead there, I'm willing to follow. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my page

Hammersoft, I have replied on my talk page to your concerns about the Kubrick article. Feel free to remove this from your page when you have viewed it.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a bit of rethinking on photo priorities. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've limited time today, and given the severity of the debates I am currently in elsewhere involving tens of thousands of articles, one article isn't enough to draw my attention today :) My apologies, but I won't get to this for a while. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen this, but...

The newly proposed guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos#Final version are actually really good. If we can get some kind of consensus on them, I think the entire problem may have sorted itself. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited‎

To try and contain the debate in one spot I am writing a general comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content where understand you are active. Regards. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

I will respond on my talk page in a few hours time. Together we have spent a good 8 hrs on the resolution of this issue, today and I need to eat to regain strength. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A response is there- with a fair few extra typos. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply at Help desk

	Hello Hammersoft. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! ZooFari 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

• All hail the mighty bureaucracy. Sigh. The more hoops one has to jump through to accomplish things, the less we'll accomplish. We've got bots that automatically archive things at WP:AN/I. I see no reason to not do the same here, and cut down on the bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

pleased to meet you

i find myself a little conflicted. i disagree vehemently with you on your position vis a vis image use policy, and at the same time find myself in utter agreement with you on, for example, your ten "points." it's really kind of a shame, you know. i think we'd have a lot more editors doing a lot more useful things if those items you point out weren't true. instead, wikipedia has in many ways become two things it didn't need to (or could have avoided, choose your own wording) become: an intellectual crutch for muppets and internet trolls who haven't the skill, ambition, or patience to, you know, find the truth somewhere a little further away than the second link down google's search results. secondly, it's become something of the laughing stock of the internet. people who who do know how proper research is performed know that the data herein is probably the most suspect available on the internet, and those that have scratched the surface even a little will know that there is, in many cases, more information available about Species 8472 than, say, loop quantum gravity.

so anyways, i bumped into you while trying to fix one of the ship infobox templates, and figured i would say hello. the above, er, complaints are pretty much the reason i've mostly left the project and don't contribute anymore unless i find something glaringly wrong. because of this, i don't remember how to properly edit templates, and i asked for help.

good luck with your editing here. hopefully you'll have the patience to stick around longer than i did. oh, and you may find this bit funny – or I may be an old fart and everyone's heard/seen them, or they've lost any kind of relevance. all the stuff i collected as an active user is just horribly out of date and useless with this new, bigger, and more betterrer ikipedia. cheers, ... aa:talk 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well :)

Wikipedia is an interesting experiment. The very founder of the project is completely and utterly wrong about understanding the nature of what an encyclopedia is, and makes this very clear with this quote "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (emphasis mine). Encyclopedias never were, are not, and never will be the sum of all human knowledge. It's a grand-arch type of statement for me to say, but I think it applies; Wikipedia was a mistake from the beginning and remains one today. Watching this mistake evolve is fascinating.

Another aspect of it that is fascinating is how Wikipedia is changing the nature of knowledge among humans with ready access to the Internet. Throughout human history, there's been aspects of various societies that have been dropped in favor of new ways of thinking. Sometimes we unearth those old ways and find amazing truths within them that were long forgotten. I think Wikipedia is part of this same process. It is doing a masterful job of covering over prior ways of information access. There's considerably less reliability, absence of academic peer review standards, but absolute ready access to it. What knowledge does the common person believe? The in depth thesis or the Wikipedia article? Answer; the thing they actually read.

A friend of mine described our modern situation as descent into tribalism. The pursuit of knowledge is no longer revered as it once was. An Aristotle today would be laughed off the stage by the mass of people. On Wikipedia, he'd probably be checkuser'd as a sockpuppet of Plato.

I don't view myself as anywhere above all of this. I recognize severe limitations of my own understanding of the scope and breadth of true philosophy. I feel more that I am part of the gibbering mass stuck in the second dimension, understanding by vague hints and subtle references that perhaps there is a 3rd dimension to the limited world we restrict ourselves to.

In the mean, I enjoy spinning the windmill hoping it is tilted at as a means to an end. A society (and, to be frank, Wikipedia is a society of its own) that can not step outside and view itself through a critical eye is doomed to fail. A case in point of this was my recent posting to WT:RFA Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_166#Another_troubling_stat.3F wherein I referenced a dissertation noting the average lifespan of a Wikipedia editor and how standards at RfA continue to rise but the lifespan does not. This of course permanently undermines RfA unless the system changes, but the gibbering masses are quick to defend their society. It's humorous to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

XenosLaw

Under the new XenosLaw, you can be blocked for failing to contribute sufficiently (unknown metric) to the mainspace of the project. See [1] "doesn't appear interested in building the encyclopedia", [2] "having not edited the mainspace in nearly a month", and [3] "I've urged you to work in the mainspace". Xeno claims DougsTech was using his account for disruption of internal processes only. This is blatantly false. Just skimming in the month of April alone, DougsTech nominated someone for adminship (though failed, still not a reason to block), tagged an indefinitely blocked account [4], notified a user of a sockpuppet case [5], sent out a welcome message [6], and made a report to usernames for attention [7]. The claim that DougsTech's account was being used solely for disruption is utterly false, and any casual review of DougsTech's editing history would have shown that. So, what remains is XenosLaw.

XenosLaw: If you fail to edit the mainspace at least seven times^* in any 30 day period, you are subject to indefinite ban from the project.

(*) DougsTech had edited mainspace six times in the prior 30 days, so the best minimalist estimate of the arbitrary XenosLaw is that seven edits is sufficient to avoid being banned.

Hoping to be banned under the new XenosLaw

In support of the new XenosLaw, I am hereby refusing to edit the mainspace more than six times for the month of May, 2009. Of course, nobody gives a rats ass if I edit the mainspace. I am, afterall, a very disrespectful editor [8]. But, be that as it may, I'll hold to my cause until June 1, 2009 unless one of the following happens:

• Xeno gives an apology to DougsTech on DougsTech's talk page acknowledging his actions were in error.
• Xeno resigns his adminship.
• I am banned (which, of course, means I won't be able to edit but it'll be rapidly undone anyways).

Anyone wishing to join me can acknowledge so here on my talk page. Of course, you probably have a weird self-immolation fetish :), but what the hell. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

hehe... should I feel honored? Just FYI when I said "mainspace" I meant namespace=0 (i.e. articlespace). Also, I blocked DougsTech, I didn't ban him. Just for clarity. –xeno ^talk 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey what's the difference? All admins are evil bastards anyway. Hammersoft is the kind of user we should all aspire to. I think highly of all the article work he's done, and the good he's done for Wikipedia. Same with DougsTech - where would we be without such a highly productive, brilliant and flawless editor? We should remove all admins, and because Hammersoft and DougsTech are so great, we'll give them the keys to site and they can look after it. I think that sounds like a great plan. Majorly talk 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, you should take your proposal for a !vote and see how well it does. I can predict the outcome by everything else you have suggested failing consensus. --DougsTech (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! A troll with a case of the bighead. I've seen it all now. Landon1980 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think I've risen to new level now. Majorly's insulting me! Oh happy times! rotfl! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• You're hilarious. I think my sides are splitting! Majorly talk 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And now the month is over. As promised, only six edits to mainspace during the month of May [9]. Interesting month. DougsTech now finds himself blocked for exceeding the community's patience, but outside of a personal attack there's no clear reason for his permanent block. I'm wondering when the community will think to send the lynch mob my way. And of course, no apology was ever given to DougsTech for the inappropriate block . And people wonder why DougsTech feels the way he does? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Small nitpick ;)

I just wanted to point out that your comparison of Xeno's mainspace edits to Dougstech's mainspace edits was a tad unfair on Xeno. If you look closely at Doug's mainspace edits at the time he was blocked you will notice that the vast majority of them were trivial AWB edits (see history, which is really (in theory) against the rules of use for AWB. If you click around the contribs from that period you will note that all of them are simple bot edits, which change the number of whitespaces, or move categories around, or does some other trivial change. A link to the rules that AWB users must follow can be found at Auto_Wiki_Browser#Rules_of_use, look at point 3. All of his edits using AWB during that time period were bot edits (eg I could run a bot to do the same task), with the exception of the edits in which he removes a stub tag.

You have to go back to march 19 to find many productive mainspace edits from Doug and those over around 300 edits go back to 7 August 2008. My point being is comparing editcounts or number of edits over X period is useless unless you look at the contents of the edits.

His edits now using Huggle are very good, as they cannot be done by machine (bot) (with exceptions, and the bots we have are limited in capacity), and are productive to the encyclopedia, and I am fairly happy with what he has done in mainspace to turn things around. Its fine to be in debates, etc so long as you are also actively doing something to help the encyclopedia (mainspace). Now mind you my mainspace edits are even worse then Dougs by a long shot, but in my defense I do much more programming for wikipedia (variuos tools/bots) of which some touch mainspace then I do actual editing these days. After my finals though I do plan on working on a math related article or Cochlear Implant. I've not made my mind up ;). —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't doubt your review, but it still doesn't undermine the point that Xeno's actions were way, way out of line and completely ignorant of the reality of the situation. Xeno's still involved and considerably more level headed about things now, but there's still been no apology from him to DougsTech. Maybe it's a sore spot for me. I don't know. I asked for help once at the 3RR noticeboard, and even stated upfront that I'd backed out of the little edit war and what happens? I get blocked, and my block record now says I agreed not to edit war implying it was a condition to unblock when I'd made it damn clear up front I wasn't in it. So, I have a soft spot for victims of admins that act in ridiculously irresponsible ways, as Xeno has done with DougsTech. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You should note carefully that I did not comment on his actions ;). Just in the future be a bit more careful when using editcount numbers (or really any kind of statistics). They usually are misleading. The question to ask is "what is a user doing". Just saying "Oh User X has 3 days more recent then user Y" is pointless without looking at what the two do. I feel for doug in a way, but I also agree with Xeno's point (though not fully his method). You can argue that Xeno was out of line, just please don't throw irrelevant facts into the matter, especially when upon a closer look its not the same as the initial appearance. It just confuses matters and distracts from your initial point ("the block was bad"). —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Could you please provide more thorough rationales when you "vote" at AfD? Comments such as these are often unhelpful when it comes to determining consensus. Thanks! Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• No thank you. I think it's self evident it is a neologism. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please explain your reasoning, or perhaps refrain from commenting at all. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Stop hounding me. When I feel there's a need to explain, I will. When I don't feel there's a need, I won't. I will not refrain from commenting, regardless. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not hounding you; I politely and respectfully asked a favor of you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• When you suggested I stop editing, it became hounding. Request denied. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've initiated a thread at WP:WQA involving you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Lowsman.jpg

You removed an rfu tag from this image, stating that it's not replaceable.

What prevents any wikipedia editor from taking a picture of one of these trophies? There are multiple copies of these in existence today. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the background to these trophies, but a picture that a Wikipedia editor takes will be non-free as well, as the trophy design is presumably copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Observe File:America's Cup.jpg. File:Stanly Cup in Hockey Hall of Fame (may 2008) edit1.jpg. File:Stewart Maxwell with Ryder Cup at the Scottish Golf Show 2008.jpg. File:Superbowl Trophy Crop.jpg. File:Worldseriestrophy.JPG. I'm re-tagging Lowsman.jpg as rfu. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of a city logo on userpage

Hello,
I saw that you removed the City Seal of Solana Beach: 20px from my userpage. As the seal of a public entity, isn't it fair use on Wikipedia on ANY page? This user-created flag of Los Angeles: is on many userpages, and contains the seal of Los Angeles.
Thank you for your time. AeonicOmega talk 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:NFCC #9 which restricts the use of fair use images to actual articles. It's not permissible to use fair use images on userpages. The flag you note is available under a free license. The seal you want to use is not. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. AeonicOmega talk 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No pressure on you, but you've provided a lot of feedback, but you haven't agreed to mediation. I feel kind of confused on that one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)