- Before 6 April 2011 removal
- Before 11 July 2011 removal
- Before 23 September 2011 removal
- minor removal
- Before 20 February 2012 removal
- Before 23 January 2013 removal
- Before 29 April 2014 removal
- Before 5 January 2015 removal
- Before 4 January 2016 removal
- Before 4 January 2017 removal
- Before 1 January 2018 removal
- Before 1 January 2019 removal
Contents
- 1 File:Irina Feodorovna Sebrova.jpg
- 2 Articles for creation
- 3 Infineon AURIX™ listed at Redirects for discussion
- 4 Ok
- 5 PRCA logo
- 6 Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
- 7 Precious anniversary
- 8 RFU
- 9 User talk:VwM.Mwv#Non-free content use
- 10 Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
- 11 UAA
- 12 Decline
- 13 bootlicker
File:Irina Feodorovna Sebrova.jpg
Hi Hammersoft. First of all, Happy New Year. I hope 2019 is a really good one for you in all things. Now, I'm wondering if you'd take a look at this edit. You previously tried to help this editor before; so, maybe you might be able to help sort things out again. I'm pretty sure that this change, now makes the file non-free (User talk:PlanespotterA320#Non-free rationale for File:Irina Feodorovna Sebrova.jpg) and means it now fails WP:NFCC#1 because of File:I. Sebrova, Komsomolskaya Pravda.png. If that's incorrect, please advise on how best to proceed. This kinda reminds me of Template:PD-Australia; I can't, however, find an equivalent license for content claiming to be "PD-Russia", but not "PD-US". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just to update that things appears to have sorted themselves out on their own at Planespotter's user talk. Still it's kinda an interesting to think about. What would the correct licensing of this image be? {{Non-free biog-pic}}? {{Non-free historic image}}? {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} or something else? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was without Internet access for a couple of days. It was, quite literally, fried. As in, lightning strike. Back up now. Of course, now the file is deleted :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- No big deal. The uploader tagged the file per WP:G7. Basically, the file was licensed as {{PD-Russia}}. A few days ago, however, the uploader added a qualifier saying that the file wasn't PD in the United States. Since I've seen this done in some cases for photos using {{PD-Australia}}, I thought that not being PD in the US meant that the file now needed to be treated as non-free. The problem was that as non-free, it didn't meet NFCC#1, NFCC#10c and NFLISTS. All a moot point now I guess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Articles for creation
Hammersoft, I would like to point out that I haven't submitted any of these articles for creation at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkuchnir (talk • contribs)
- @Kkuchnir: I understand that, but the articles I tagged would very likely not pass an articles for deletion discussion. Please read through the WP:NGRIDIRON guideline. If you have questions, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Infineon AURIX™ listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Infineon AURIX™. Since you had some involvement with the Infineon AURIX™ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian: Thanks for the notification. The discussion was open for 17 minutes :) I would have agreed with all the deletions anyway. If I were an admin, I would have deleted that redirect as problematic myself. I probably should have listed it for deletion when I moved it away from the "tm" bit. But, it's been six years since then; don't know what I was doing or thinking. I've slept since then :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft:. Yeah, of course I didn't know the admin would come and delete them all so quickly. Glad you have slept! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok
It’s ok he got my permission Wwepro126 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Whether he has your permission or not, signing statements he made using your signature is not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Noookio Wwepro126 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- What? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
PRCA logo
Hi Hammersoft The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association redesigned their logo. It just happens to be 126 x 126, the same exact size as their previous one. I tried to upload it to the same file. It's all mixed up in there and can't tell the two files apart. So I created a new file, and there even seems to be some confused association between the two. A robot just came by to say it will remove one of the versions in there. What I really need is the old file deleted if you would?
This is the old one, where it's a bucking horse and rider with the acronym below.
Just fyi this is the new one. It looks like a shield.
Thanks much, dawnleelynn(talk) 22:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dawnleelynn: Hi. I can't delete the old one as I am not an administrator. However, I have tagged it for speedy deletion under the WP:CSD#F1 speedy deletion criteria. You don't need to do anything further on your part. An administrator will come along and delete it in good time. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, that works. I should have thought of that, as I have done that in Commons. Anyway much appreciated. Have a great weekend. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
- Enterprisey • JJMC89
- BorgQueen
- Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley
Interface administrator changes
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Precious anniversary
sudden revelations | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1860 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you :) I'm still touched by this, a year later. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
RFU
I saw File:Fiber optic light tube for architecture.jpg and thought the same thing. It's reassuring to know that someone else felt the same. Even if NFCC#1 isn't an issue, I think it fails NFCC#8 as well. What do you think about File:Taser products.jpg? Same uploader and seems to have the same issues as the light tube file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, RFU. Tag it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
User talk:VwM.Mwv#Non-free content use
Hi again Hammersoft. Do you think there's a possibility that File:Reichstag flag original.jpg and File:Ayn Rand by Talbot 1943.jpg might actually not need to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I commented there. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping to sort that out. For some reason, it seemed as if he/she thought that I was asking him/her to contact photographers who had already died and ask for their permission to upload the their photos to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Happy to help! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping to sort that out. For some reason, it seemed as if he/she thought that I was asking him/her to contact photographers who had already died and ask for their permission to upload the their photos to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
- checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
UAA
UAA also states "This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked." The name is not a problem if they don't edit. If the user does not edit, their offensive name will not show up in edit summaries or page histories, and thus it is not a problem. In fact, blocking it only draws attention to it by placing it in the block log. It is not unheard of for a user to register a name simply to test what they can get away with and they have no intention of using the name. There are names that I think serious enough to block without having edited, (which I won't give examples of here as I don't wish to use those words) but I didn't feel those qualified. If you can find someone else to block them, fair enough(as I see someone did) but that's where I stand. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how those two usernames are not blatant and serious problems. Note that UAA says the usernames, not their editing. If their editing were problematic, I would report it to AIV after the usual warnings. UAA is for reporting usernames that violate policy. Those usernames were unequivocal violations. I've reported close to 500 of these and never saw a reason why reporting them shouldn't be done. I suspect we're just going to congenially disagree. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline
You declined a submission here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harold_G._Wren
The man was a dean of three different law schools.
In the case of law schools, the dean of the law school is the person who has the highest-level administrative post. It differs from being a dean at a college, where that is often not the highest-level administrative post.
The law schools in question are:
- the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville (the oldest law school in Kentucky and the fifth oldest in the country in continuous operation),
- the Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College (an American Bar Association-approved private law school that also joined the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), and
- the T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond (a "highly selective" US News & World Report tier 1 law school, considered top tier by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, among the top five law schools by the National Jurist, and one of the Princeton Review's Best Law Schools of 2018. It has full accreditation by all recognized standardizing agencies in the United States on the American Bar Association registry, and is the #1 alma mater of judges in the state).
All notable - they also all have WP articles.
This should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criterion 6.
Even one would have been enough. 2604:2000:E010:1100:10D5:843F:172A:398D (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @2604:2000:E010:1100:10D5:843F:172A:398D: Thank you for your comments. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes, specifically point #6. It notes that "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone" (emphasis mine). The point goes on to note that there can be exceptions. I'm certainly willing to entertain them. If there were a greater body of work, greater impact on the practice of law, etc. there might be a case. Another person might view this differently, but I don't see that notability under WP:NACADEMIC has been met. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, In the case of law schools, the dean of the law school is the person who has the highest-level administrative post. It differs from being a dean at a college, where that is often not the highest-level administrative post. What you are pointing to is clearly a reference to a "lesser" (i.e., non-highest-level) post. Even the poorly referenced wikipedia definition of dean notes the difference. This person had the highest-level academic post at three different notable law schools. That would have been sufficient had they only had the highest-level post at just one. If you have a different view, let's involve some people from the proper talk page or who are familiar with law schools to join this conversation (I just asked for input on two related talk pages, where people may be familiar with the role of law school deans). 2604:2000:E010:1100:10D5:843F:172A:398D (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- A dean of a school within a larger university is not the highest appointed position. It is a lesser posting. In all three cases, they are schools within the respective universities/colleges, and the dean is not the highest appointed position. You are certainly welcome to engage in discussion with other people on this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to agree with the IP. In terms of notability, law school deans are at least a cut above deans of primarily undergraduate divisions within colleges and universities. Among the thousands of universities and colleges, there are only about 200 accredited American law schools; serving as dean of three different law schools, while not unheard of, is a fairly remarkable achievement in itself. bd2412 T 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- BD2412, as always I respect your opinion, knowing your experience and background. Personally, I don't see how being a dean of a law school meets WP:NACADEMIC by itself. It clearly notes that a dean is a lesser position. In this case, there certainly could be an exception given being dean of three different schools. But, I didn't see it as enough, as his body of work otherwise has not apparently made an impact on the profession. If you feel it does merit an exception, certainly feel free to approve the draft. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I will look into it further. The subject has also written books, I will see if I can find additional points of notability there. bd2412 T 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hammer - as mentioned, I think "Dean" means different things, depending upon context. As reflected in the Wikipedia article on the subject. Which differentiates between deans. The difference is between deans at undergraduate US schools (such as a dean of students at an undergraduate college, or a dean of the college of arts and sciences at an undergraduate university with a number of colleges), and those at graduate law schools and medical schools where the dean is the top administrative official (which may be, but of course need not be, at all affiliated with any undergraduate institutions). There is no higher administrative position within the law school than the Dean of the law school. That is in contrast to the Dean of a college at an undergraduate school. Which is - context suggests - what the reference in NACADEMIC refers to. 2604:2000:E010:1100:88AB:EDF2:61B3:89E9 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not an academic, but in my experience deans of schools at major institutions are not differentiated by being undergrad or grad. I.e., a physics department has a dean that covers both. A law school does not have an undergraduate component, but that does not change its status as a department of a university/college. Further, WP:NACADEMIC does not differentiate based on grad/undergrad. All three of these schools are components of larger institutions, with reporting lines from them to the senior appointed staff. We're going to disagree on this point, and that's ok. We don't have to agree. bd2412 is a very experienced editor here, as well as being a lawyer himself. I'll go with his recommendations. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have found an 1999 ABA Journal issue positively reviewing Wren's The Of Counsel Agreement. I think that is enough, combined with the decanal offices, to put this over the top. I will improve and move the article accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks BD! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks. @Hammer -- I think NACACADEMIC should be revised, recognizing (as the Wikipedia entry for Dean does), the difference between undergraduate deans (of undergraduate colleges, etc.) and graduate law school and medical school deans. That way, we won't have to worry about editors nominating for deletion (or not allowing on wikipedia) articles such as that on former Harvard Law school dean Albert Sacks - whose only claim to notability in his article is that he was ... a law school dean. Undergraduate school deans and law school/med school deans are simply different animals. And this is also reflected in the fact that US law schools and medical schools may not be affiliated at all with any lower-level undergraduate institution (e.g., Brooklyn Law School, any number of US medical schools). In some countries, one can become a lawyer by undergraduate study; not in the US -- so what I've written may differ by country. To lump them together is like lumping together top administrators of grade schools, high schools, and universities. At wp, we don't generally even reflect most grade schools, and certainly the head of a high school has different notability than that of a university. So it should be with graduate schools - which are at yet an even higher level. 2604:2000:E010:1100:88AB:EDF2:61B3:89E9 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you wish to change the guideline, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. If I have the energy after this! Unclear. BTW, please ping me if you nominate for deletion Harvard Law school dean Albert Sacks. Slacker. That's all he ever did that might be considered notable. :) Have a great weekend. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C9A6:3017:43D0:7CFA (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article stands on its own merits. I haven't looked at the article. We disagree on the meaning of the guideline. That really is ok. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. If I have the energy after this! Unclear. BTW, please ping me if you nominate for deletion Harvard Law school dean Albert Sacks. Slacker. That's all he ever did that might be considered notable. :) Have a great weekend. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C9A6:3017:43D0:7CFA (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you wish to change the guideline, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have found an 1999 ABA Journal issue positively reviewing Wren's The Of Counsel Agreement. I think that is enough, combined with the decanal offices, to put this over the top. I will improve and move the article accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not an academic, but in my experience deans of schools at major institutions are not differentiated by being undergrad or grad. I.e., a physics department has a dean that covers both. A law school does not have an undergraduate component, but that does not change its status as a department of a university/college. Further, WP:NACADEMIC does not differentiate based on grad/undergrad. All three of these schools are components of larger institutions, with reporting lines from them to the senior appointed staff. We're going to disagree on this point, and that's ok. We don't have to agree. bd2412 is a very experienced editor here, as well as being a lawyer himself. I'll go with his recommendations. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- BD2412, as always I respect your opinion, knowing your experience and background. Personally, I don't see how being a dean of a law school meets WP:NACADEMIC by itself. It clearly notes that a dean is a lesser position. In this case, there certainly could be an exception given being dean of three different schools. But, I didn't see it as enough, as his body of work otherwise has not apparently made an impact on the profession. If you feel it does merit an exception, certainly feel free to approve the draft. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to agree with the IP. In terms of notability, law school deans are at least a cut above deans of primarily undergraduate divisions within colleges and universities. Among the thousands of universities and colleges, there are only about 200 accredited American law schools; serving as dean of three different law schools, while not unheard of, is a fairly remarkable achievement in itself. bd2412 T 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- A dean of a school within a larger university is not the highest appointed position. It is a lesser posting. In all three cases, they are schools within the respective universities/colleges, and the dean is not the highest appointed position. You are certainly welcome to engage in discussion with other people on this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's interesting advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It states: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. ... Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought .... As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments related to existing notability policies and guidelines in deletion discussions, and also to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." And "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.". 2604:2000:E010:1100:C9A6:3017:43D0:7CFA (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've tried to help you as best I can. We disagree. I've said it's fine if we disagree. I've pointed you to where you can go to have the guideline changed. I recommend you direct your efforts at improving Harold G. Wren, trying to get the guideline changed to allow deans to pass WP:NACADEMIC, or begin some other article. The article you were concerned about has been significantly improved by bd2412, and it's been moved to mainspace, a move I agreed with based on bd2412's recommendations. I think we're done here. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've taken your suggestion as to where to go to seek to have the guideline changed. 2604:2000:E010:1100:8069:D17F:7325:3D9 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've tried to help you as best I can. We disagree. I've said it's fine if we disagree. I've pointed you to where you can go to have the guideline changed. I recommend you direct your efforts at improving Harold G. Wren, trying to get the guideline changed to allow deans to pass WP:NACADEMIC, or begin some other article. The article you were concerned about has been significantly improved by bd2412, and it's been moved to mainspace, a move I agreed with based on bd2412's recommendations. I think we're done here. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
bootlicker
protecting Philip Brailsford (who murdered Daniel Shaver in the most horrific way, after he surrendered), even just from cyber-vandalism, makes you guilty by proxy. "sic semper tyrannus" applies to pathetic censors like Hammersoft as well as to rouge cops like Brailsford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicsempertyrannus2020 (talk • contribs)
- I'm not particularly interested in whatever it is that motivates you. Regardless, if you create another account to try to skirt around your now blocked account, you best follow our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, else you'll just be blocked again. Even if you choose not to follow that policy, I think you have to agree that being insulted by a random person on the Internet whom I've never met and never will has no gravity with me. It is, rather, a reflection on you. To the article and your change to it, again I have no iron in the fire. I was implementing the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, which is strictly enforced here and for good reason. We can't allow random people to add vicious attacks against a person's character without a foundation in reliable, secondary sources. I'm sure you can understand this. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)