Last modified on 2 June 2014, at 14:28

User talk:Hammersoft

Return to the user page of "Hammersoft".
English: Welcome to the Commons, Hammersoft!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hammerqrcode.gif

Image:Borat.jpgEdit

Image deletion warning Image:Borat.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--GeorgHHtalk   21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Freedom of panorama and two imagesEdit

I believe that you have misused the copyvio procedure. Cases like this are better handled via a regular deletion request. SV1XV (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • No, I haven't. This is a blatant copyright violation and a routine deletion. Photographs of 3D art works are derivative works. In the United States, such works are subject to any copyrights extant on the original artwork. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Routine deletions on the basis of COM:FOP should not be handled via the copyvio procedure. Please use a regular deletion request and state the facts. For some reason overzealous requests for speedy deletion have become more common recently. SV1XV (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Maybe because this is such a blatant and obvious abuse of copyright? Having to go months and months and months around here in a deletion request case example) when it is such an obvious case is absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


File:Rmacgillivray.jpgEdit

Hi, Hammersoft This picture was photographed (created) by one of photographer hired by UBC and we have been using this photos for multiple purposes (website, brochures, and posters etc). Martin Dee is the person who took the photograph so we assume that he is the owner. We really like to use this picture for our wikipedia page. What's the procedure to follow? I already sent email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with "OTRS pending|month=April|day=22|year=2010" tag. Thanks for your help. Shgrieco (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • UBC most likely owns the image. Therefore, you have to obtain release from UBC and submit that release to m:OTRS. This page on en.wikipedia gives better directions on how to accomplish this. Understand that permission to use on Wikipedia or Commons is insufficient. It must be released under a free license, most especially because this person is (presumably) alive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hammersoft, Thanks SO much for your super quick reply. I will obtain release from UBC and submit that releast ASAP. Is there any way to hold deleting process of the image meanwhile? Should I add "holdon" tag somewhere? Again, I appreciate your kind instruction. 142.103.62.75 22:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
      • It's already been deleted. When you obtain release and it's confirm by OTRS, you can just re-upload it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of PanoramaEdit

The threads I have seen are Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Mass deletion due to the lack of FoP, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2004 Landmark v Ross answer.pdf and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010Apr#How does it serve the goals of this project to delete hundreds of images of PD buildings? Belgrano (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

deleted your notification to User:Elslavco re File:Gliese 581g.jpgEdit

Deleting another user's comment without permission is generally not permitted but I deleted your "source missing" notification at User_talk:Elslavco because I didn't think "source missing" applied anymore (we now know what the source is) and it would accordingly just create confusion instead of directing the user to the deletion discussion page. I trust you don't mind deleting your note when it has been superseded like this.Bdell555 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Of course not. Well done. I was concerned about the lack of source an inability to verify licensing. Sourcing to "NASA", an agency that produces huge quantities of images, was hardly good enough. I'm glad it's been found and clarified. I'm voting delete on the image, as this is a clear case. Thanks for the note. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop your taggingEdit

{{copyvio}} says it is for obvious cases only. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  • As I explained, it is obvious, even blatant. Nevertheless, I'm not going to engage in an edit war with you. I'm reporting this to the administrator's noticeboard, and let them sort it out. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Why not make a few DRs, if you are so certain? Copyright is difficult, FOP often cannot be decided at first sight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Because there's no reason to. Deletion requests sometimes takes months and months here. In the meantime, we're violating copyright in a blatant fashion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lankan FlagsEdit

Hi, can you help me with these files, these are important images and it would me very bad if they were to be deleted. How can I make sure that this does not happen? I have infact contacted the site and they have given me permission to use all the flags for Wikipedia purposes.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Permission to use is irrelevant. For the images to be hosted on Commons, they must be released under a free license or in the public domain. See Commons:Licensing. There's no wiggle room on this, and it does not matter how important the images are. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sharu.jpgEdit

Hello There,

I understand I had uploaded images earlier that where obtained from websites. But this subject image that I have uploaded here is very much my own work and not obtained from any internet site and request u NOT to have the same deleted. All the images uploaded today by me is my very own.


Regards,

Tinasinster (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PAP logo variation.png and SDP logo variation.pngEdit

I have converted your speedy deletion requests regarding "File:PAP logo variation.png" and "File:SDP logo variation.png" to ordinary deletion requests, because I think the logos are simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} to apply. Do comment on the deletion request pages. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"To date, every image you have uploaded has been a copyright violation. I strongly, STRONGLY urge you to stop making uploads here until you learn about copyright and how it applies to you and your uploads here. You can't just take images you find somewhere on the Internet, and upload them here with a claim that you are the copyright holder. There is no possible way you are the copyrights holder to flags from Minnesota, Mississauga (another country, no less), Louisville, etc. Please STOP what you are doing. If you persist in uploading copyright violations here it it likely you will be blocked. Thank you,"


You deleted a whole bunch of my uploadsEdit

WTF are you talking about boy!?!? I am not breaking any copyright violations! These are flags and seals of counties and cities and under no circumstance can they be copyrighted. Since WHEN did I claim I was the copyright holder! And how come this flag was allowed? ThisguyYEAH (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have changed from PD-self to PD-ineligible so there, I claim nothing. Since I am using {{PD-ineligible}}{{Insignia}}, I am now off the hook! ThisguyYEAH (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please conduct yourself with a civil tongue. As to the ability for flags and seals of counties to be copyrighted, you are quite wrong. Flags and seals of counties most emphatically can be copyrighted. PD-ineligible is an improper tagging if the images have creative content. If they do have creative content, you must prove they are copyright free via some other mechanism or otherwise available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on man, have mercy on me. I am currently working on this table on Metropolitan Areas located in the Great Lakes Megalopolis and now I am missing quite a few flags. Since the ones that existed were wrongly copyrighted I decided to create my own, non-copyrighted flags. I mean flags should be {{PD-ineligible}} since they can be publicly flown anywhere where applicable. In fact I have flags right here in my own house, everyone does. If I can fly my national colors then why doesn't that apply to all flags? ThisguyYEAH (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Just because you can fly a flag from any given place doesn't free that flag of copyright. Sorry. Creating your own versions of the flags also doesn't transfer rights of the original copyright holders to you, as they constitute derivative works. I'm sorry, but your usage is inappropriate and not compatible with Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Your Mass Tagging of Euro Coins as speedy Deletion because of Copyright violationEdit

Hello Hammersoft, You tagged lots of images of Euro coins as copyright violation. This has been rolled back since it does not make sense to discuss this on an image per image basis. I started the discussion on the Admin noticeboard. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Euro_coin_copyvios

Best regard & groetjes

--Neozoon (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please link the relevant pages to enable the stupid admin to delete the file? Thanks. Your reasons lead to useless clicks by people who the need to close the file again since they do not know. You do copy and paste anyway - so why not make a better reason? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We need extra bureaucracy in order to delete something? They're blatant copyright violations. There's no wiggle room on it. The reason is stated, and its unequivocal. If an admin doesn't want to delete it because they don't understand copyright concerning the national sides of Euro coins, then they probably shouldn't be deleting them anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Not really bureaucracy but more efficient work. Exactly what you write in your last sentence: there is one big category of copyright violations. Files with reasons with copyright violation reasons which are not understood by the admin who looks at a file are closed again (without doing any action) - but a bit time is lost then. I just mean you prepare you text anyway so it should be easy to include a link to the relevant policy. However, have nice days! --Saibo (Δ) 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As I said, if you don't understand the copyright situation regarding a particular type of work, you shouldn't be closing speedy deletion requests on such subjects as unfulfilled; leave them for an administrator who is knowledgeable in that area. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You're missing my point but I do not enjoy this conversation so I stop here. --Saibo (Δ) 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Rangers1915.JPGEdit

Hello,

Is this case, a deletion request should be made. It should not be speedy deleted. Could you do that please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see the need? It's a clear copyright violation, and the indication from the copyright holder makes it clear. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it is not so clear. That's the point. Yann (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  ? What's not clear about it? It was published post 1968, and the center maintains copyright [1]. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This is obviously NOT a speedy deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rangers1915.JPG. Yann (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? I've stated the reasons it should be a speedy deletion. Would you please state a case why it shouldn't be a speedy deletion? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Still no linksEdit

Hallo Hammersoft, you use still no links [2] :-( Please do so. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

? What links? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
In your explanation why that is a "copyvio". Links to help/guideline pages / old discussion which make clear that this is a copyvio. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I already have, and see our earlier discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

French euro coinsEdit

Doesn't your observation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:France 2012 commemorative2 euro coin.jpg mean that all images in Category:Euro coins (France) and subcategories should be removed? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • At this point, yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, so I've started three deletion requests (one per category):
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (France)
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Commemorative euro coins (France)
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Commemorative 2 euro coins (France)
Feel free to comment. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of North Korean photosEdit

A few things :-

1) Please don't delete photos without starting a brief discussion with the user that uploaded the image - I would consider this common courtesy.

2) The photos are, in fact, in the public domain. Article 12 of the Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea states that :

"The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright."

As the photos were both attached to news bulletins issued by a state newspaper (Rodong Sinmun) and by the state broadcaster KCNA, they can be considered 'current news' items.

Also, Article 32 states that :

"A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner, in the following cases:"

  • (Part 3)"When a copyrighted work is copied, broadcast or adapted for school education,"
  • (Part 7) "When a copyrighted work is performed free of charge,"

However, I do concede that if Article 32 was used to legitimise usage of the images on Wikipedia, then it could *not* be listed as "PD-DPRKGov", but under a different DPRK copyright tag.

EDIT : I didn't notice we already have a tag for this, too. Silly me!

Thank you for being vigilant, but I think you have perhaps been a little too trigger-happy here.

--Armchair Ace (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  • 1) I am not an administrator on this project. Therefore, I can't delete anything. I tagged the image for speedy deletion because it is a blatant copyright violation. There's really no wriggle room on that. Commons does not accept copyright violating content. If there is ambiguity, I would have placed the image for deletion via discussion. When there is no amiguity, speedy deletion is the route to go. Sorry.
  • 2) As regards the Article 12 law; prior discussions have concluded that this law does not apply to state owned media outlets. This makes sense of course given that the source page of the image clearly has a copyright statement on it (not that one is required, but it certainly clarifies in this case). If Article 12 applied, that notice would not be there, much as you would not see copyright notices on virtually all U.S. government web pages. Example deletion discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:DPRK Parliament.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jong-il.jpg
  • 3) As regards Article 32; that is not 'free enough' for Commons. For Commons purposes, for something to be 'free', it needs to be able to be used for commercial purposes, including derivative works, without permission of the copyright holder. Article 32 does not grant that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagging notificationEdit

Please inform image uploaders when you tag images for deletion. The tags all have instructions on them on a way to quickly put a template on the uploader's talk page. There are also scripts you can use for this purpose.-Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I do, every time, unless it's been uploaded by a bot. Are you referring to a specific case where I didn't, and if so what case? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I see now they were bot uploads. By the way, a good source of information about whether a US sculpture from 1989 and prior was registered for copyright is SIRIS[3]. The Lone Sailor is in fact copyrighted, as your tags suggest. Cheers. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks! I didn't know about that resource. In this case, I was going off the USN Memorial Foundation's stance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Tangential; I didn't tag two remaining images in Category:The Lone Sailor (one, two) as I felt the statue was incidental/de minimis to the overall image. Your thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

French moneyEdit

Hello,
On the page Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/05#French money, I asked a few questions about the copyright on French money. I know you have occasionally commented on related questions, so this message is just to inform you of this discussion, if you know the answers or if you wish to comment. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Lazarus-wines.jpgEdit

Pay attention to copyright
File:Lazarus-wines.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

High Contrast (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  • What was copyrightable about that image? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblock requestEdit

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "I am requesting unblocking for several reasons:
  1. Considerable precedent for my actions: I have requested literally hundreds of speedy deletions in my time here. Many of them have been copyright violations of Euro coins. Examples include File:Belgium "10 jaar Euro" 2 Euro 2012.jpg, File:Belgium 2euro 2012.jpg, File:Belgium 2012 Euro Coins.jpg. I can cite a huge number of these. I've never been even threatened with being blocked for tagging files in this way. I did the very same today with File:BEL 2013.png (and note it is a Belgian commemorative coin, in the same vein as the coins I cited above) with this edit. If there is a question of procedure that I am not following, then pray tell why it is I've not been informed of it before? Why is it that so many administrators have followed a procedure that I have been blocked for following?
  2. No basis in policy for blocking: The blocking admin, User:Jcb, claims there is "Misuse of copyvio tag" based on this discussion, yet the admins there could not cite any policy to support their claims. If there is a clear misuse of the copyvio tag, there should be a clear reason cited in policy. There is none.
  3. Blocking admin not following deletion policy: The blocking admin knows full well that the files in that discussion plus the File:BEL 2013.png mentioned above are copyright violations. If there is an abuse of process, it is the blocking admin in this case for failing to follow the policy outlined at Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Speedy_deletion where it says "If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request". That IS policy, but User:Jcb failed to follow it; not just once, but four times. Instead, he blocks me for violating a policy that does not exist.
  4. Blocking admin is involved: It is clear from the interactions with User:Jcb (see User_talk:Jcb#Euro_coins and this discussion) that I am in dispute with him over this issue. Despite this, he chose to use his administrator tools against me. On en.wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee has de-adminned administrators for doing so. User:Jcb is out of line for using his tools in a dispute in which he is involved.
  5. Blocking admin not following blocking policy: At Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators, administrators are instructed to warn before blocking. No such warning ever happened. There was a discussion regarding the issue at this discussion noted before, but no warning.
  6. Blocking admin not following blocking policy (2): At Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators "After blocking", it instructs "Notify the blocked user, preferably using a user block template." I have received no such notification, nor any clarification as to why I was blocked other than the non-policy base previously noted.
  7. Blocking admin leaving me nothing to learn: As noted above, there is no policy on which to base the block. At Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators it says "use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behavior. ". Yet, there are no policies in which to familiarize myself in order to avoid being blocked again. Am I supposed to follow the example of one discussion at the admin noticeboard which is an undocumented (and thus non-existent) policy or follow the examples of many other admins that have deleted the files I have requested to be deleted? Should I follow what User:Jcb says I must do or follow what admins User:INeverCry and User:Ezarate (and many other admins) have done on files I have requested to be speedy deleted?

In summary, the blocking admin failed to follow policy at least three times, has blocked me based on a non-existent policy, is using his tools while involved in a dispute, and left me confused as to whether I am to follow him (on penalty of being blocked again) or follow other administrators. I am not some IP editor or single purpose account. I have been here for six years, longer than Jcb's been an admin. I expect better behavior from an administrator than this. I am happy to discuss this issue, but blocking me is not the way to see through on this issue. That Jcb disagrees with my actions is understood. That he can block for it without citing applicable policy is wrong. That his actions have violated policy at least three times in this dispute is wrong. That he chose to block me despite being obviously involved in a dispute with me is beyond belief. I will agree to temporarily suspend my tagging of Euro coins until discussion concludes regarding this issue. I am, therefore, requesting unblocking. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

PS to Jcb Since it apparently needs to be made clear, it would be extremely out of line for you to decline this unblock request."
Decline reason: "Procedural close. User is no longer blocked. INeverCry 04:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

At the administrators noticeboard, three different admins (Mattbuck, Jameslwoodward and myself) told you to use regular DRs for coins. You just ignored our instructions and continued to abuse the copyvio tag for it. That's why you have been blocked for 1 day. Jcb (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I will not unblock you. As Jcb says, three different Admins tried to get through to you that what you were doing does not follow our practice and both makes more work for Admins and fails to communicate with users who might not understand a speedy. Saying that Admins should convert your speedies to DRs is fundamentally thumbing your nose at the active Admins and making them do considerably more work. That is well outside of the spirit of Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The block will expire soon enough. The issue, however, remains. The dichotomy that exists that you will block me if I do it again, but other admins happily follow a different procedure is wrong. There is no other word for it. Your opinion is just that; an opinion. You, Jim, noted yourself it is not based on policy. To insist you will block people for using a procedure you don't like, and block if they do not follow your non-policy based opinion is deplorable. Both of you should be ashamed of your behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

DichotomyEdit

I find it rather sickening that I am blocked yet the uploader (User:LitoPap) of the four files involved in this dispute has not been. This, despite him having uploaded a broad array of copyrighted Euro coins, all of which until now have been deleted. I'm trying to defend Commons, LitoPap is violating copyrights, but I'm the one that is blocked. Is this really what Commons is all about now? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User has been warned for the first time 30 December (by you). If he starts uploading again, please report him at some noticeboard and he will probably get blocked. Jcb (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
User:LitoPap is a newbie, with just over 100 edits on all WMF projects. While you have relatively few edits here, you are by no means in the same category and failed to heed the clear warning in the discussion on ANB, and in fact, yourself suggested that you might be blocked. With that said, I have blocked LitoPap for three days because he or she today uploaded more Euro coin images after your warning. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no clear warning for the simple fact that you fail to base your opinion in policy, but just what you would prefer to have done. Your reasoning is utterly flawed and lacking merit. I noted above that Jcb did in fact violate policy on at least three occasions, but not even so much as a warning has been given to him. Yet, you're quite happy to have a block sustain on me, when I have violated NOT ONE SINGLE POLICY. The dichotomy is disgusting, to say the least and smacks of admin elitism. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And no response nor explanation for the abysmal behavior from the very people who should be explaining their non-policy based block. I presume from this that I should follow the example of many other admins who deleted the files I marked as copyvios, without blocking based on personal opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I had hoped that the short block would get your attention and have you understand that the Admins who have worked this matter are serious -- we want you do to things the way that the community has informally agreed. Instead it seems to have increased your intransigence. That's too bad.
The fundamental problem here is that for some reason that I do not understand at all, you are insisting on using a procedure that the community has informally agreed we would not use for FOP and for Euro Coins. Your insistence on doing speedies creates five to ten times more work for Admins than DRs and leads to confusion on the part of the newbies who upload Euro coins, which in turn leads to still more work for the community. I and the others have explained this to you several times.
You point to the fact that there is no formal policy on the matter. That is true. There are many aspects of Commons that are governed by informal agreements among the active users and are not covered by formal policy. We have better things to do than to go through the pain of trying to implement new formal policy, with 25,000 users free to chime in with their opinion.
Your lack of respect for a simple request, one that will take no more work on your part, suggests that you do not understand that this is a community where we help each other -- we do not deliberately make things harder for our colleagues.
That, in turn suggests that you are someone that we might be better off without. It's time for you to decide whether you want to be a helpful contributing member of this community or a nuisance who does things his way even though it substantially increases the workload on others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It did get my attention; my attention to the fact that you have blocked me based on your opinion, not on policy. Pray tell, what other "informal" policies am I at risk of breaking and being blocked for on a whim? I AM insistent on using a procedure plenty of other members of this community seem to have no problem using. Only your particular subset of the community seems to be abiding by it, and worse being willing to block people who don't acquiesce to you non-policy based demands. If you want to block me again for not abiding by your hidden, informal, policy you can expect serious negative consequences for it. That you are an admin does not place you in any sense in a position of authority over me. In fact, quite the opposite. Administrators take on the role of administrator to serve the community, not the other way around. I do not serve you. If you are not comfortable with that role, if you are not comfortable with abiding by policy and doing things in accordance with it rather than some vague, informal agreement that no one seems to be able to point to, then I strongly suggest you step down from administrator status. It is obviously too much of a burden for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have just tagged File:Selena Quintanilla-Perez.jpg for speedy deletion as a blatant copyright violation. No, I didn't do this out of spite of you or anyone else. I did this as I have done everything else here; for the betterment of the project. If you doubt this, you can see my edits here which show I have previously worked on removing this image from that article for local project reasons. It came to my attention that the file had been improperly transferred to Commons and I have properly tagged it for deletion here. If you dispute this, and think I should be blocked for using the {{copyvio}} tag then perhaps you should just place Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion for deletion since you obviously despise speedy deletion so much and feel it creates so much work for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you feel obliged to create more work for me and my colleagues -- we have enough to do -- 1,500 deletions every day -- without people making it harder for us. Making more work for the active Admins is not "for the betterment of the project" -- it simply wastes valuable time.
However, you won't get a rise out of me for File:Selena Quintanilla-Perez.jpg . It was an entirely appropriate {{speedy}} and I have deleted it. The only files we disagree strongly about are Euro coins, although the community has generally stopped using speedies for all DWs because the uploader often does not understand the reason for deletion of a DW and the closing comment is not enough to explain it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel obliged because you apparently hold a position that speedy deletion is inappropriate because it creates more work. If that is the case, which I seriously doubt, then place speedy deletion for deletion as a process. Then you won't have to worry about declining speedy deletions; it even speeds up the work around here since you don't have to worry about it. If you don't want to do the work that comes with being an administrator, then stop being an administrator.
  • I have spent six years on this project with a spotless record. To receive a block for something not based on policy, by a person clearly involved in a dispute with me is seriously reprehensible. I re-iterate the blocking admin violated policy three times, but not so much as a warning to him. I break no policy and I get blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Logos you tagged for deletionEdit

Hello. Thanks for letting me know they are up for deletion. However, I have a question. "Why are they up for deletion?" They are trademarked by the Universities and are in the public domain. They aren't a text logo, but simply just a PD-shape, except for the NSU one. Please let me know what I need to do to keep them. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Happy to answer! Ok, others have raised the issue of threshold of originality to you on your talk page. In each of the cases that I tagged, the image is in my opinion well above that threshold. Word art is one thing, and many athletic logos are just that; word art. It's still words, maybe with color, etc. But they are letters/words. In the cases of the images I tagged, there is artistry beyond words that is copyrightable. Yes, they are trademarked but being trademarked does not make them ineligible for copyright. Trademark and copyright are rights that exist independent of each other. Have a look at Commons:Threshold of originality. That can do a better job than I can of explaining I think. Feel free to ask me questions. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I understand now! Do you if I ask how come EugeneZelenko deleted logos like File:KTVH Beartooth NBC logo.png, File:Braum's logo.png, File:Arby's logo.png, and File:Kool Smiles logo.png? Or should I ask him? He described them as Non-trivial logo. What does that mean? I don't really know much about the licensing, just if it is words or letters. The Braum's logo I can see as a reason you described above, but the others I'm a little iffy on. I don't mind asking him, if you'd rather have him answer the question. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since I can't see deleted files (I'm not an administrator), then I can't comment on what's been deleted. Your best bet is to ask him. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)