User talk:Adamant1/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Adamant1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted content

---

Hello Adamant1/Archive 1, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:TCF Bank Logo.png

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

• use in any work, regardless of content
• creation of derivative works
• commercial use
• free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

• File:Banco di Sicilia Logo.png
• File:Banco Internacional Ecuador.png
• File:Banco Internacional.png
• File:Banco di Napoli Logo.jpg
• File:Banca Popolare Di Vicenza Logo.jpg
• File:Banco Popolare di Sondrio Logo.png
• File:Banco Popolare di Novara Logo.jpg
• File:Antonveneta Logo.jpg

Yours sincerely, 1989 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@1989: , Hello. No where in my upload did I say I was going off Wikipedia's copyright standards. Things like simple geometric shapes or text do not meet the threshold of originality for copyright and can therefore be used in Commons under fair use standards. That's why I put the Commons acceptable banner on all of them that said so. As it says, "This image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. It's also why I included the "maybe trademarked in some places" banner. Which also is a Commons banner and has zero to do with Wikipedia copyright standards. If you had of took the time to look at Template talk:PD-textlogo, which is cited in the fair use banner, you would have seen that company logos are acceptable in Commons because they are not unique, original works. Again, that's a Commons a article and those are discussions about Commons copyright standards. Which have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Your claim that company logo's are not acceptable in Commons is directly contradicted by the existence of that article and the many discussions there about company logos that are accepted. Along with the many company logos that have existed in Commons for extremely long periods of time without issue. It's pretty ridiculous that you didn't bother to review the copyright section of the logo's articles, ignored Template talk:PD-textlogo when making your judgement, and didn't contact me first before having the logos deleted. Since your clearly wrong and it's going to be a massive hassle re-uploading the logos now. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Banco di Napoli Logo.jpg

And also:

• File:Banco di Sicilia Logo.png
• File:Banco Internacional.png
• File:Banco Popolare di Novara Logo.jpg
• File:Banco Popolare di Sondrio Logo.png

Yours sincerely, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: What happens if the deletion request never goes anywhere? Is there a way the nomination can be brought back up to the top of the deletion request or something so people will vote on it already? I was using the files for a project and I'd like to continue doing so if I can. The file being suspended in a deletion request forever isn't very helpful to that. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It will eventually get closed, but we're all volunteers and there aren't enough of us, so the backlog of DRs is about two months. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand how it goes. I deal with AfDs on Wikipedia a lot and its the same there. Although, it doesn't usually take two months. I know on Wikipedia you can relist an AfD if it's been stale for a while so more people will see it. I thought there might be a similar process here. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Bank of Commerce Logo.png

File:Bank of Commerce Logo.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Logos of companies associated with mass media

I can see the problem - Category:Logos of media companies should be within Category:Logos of companies associated with mass media, not the other way around. The "associated with" title seems redundant, but it is part of an exiting category structure, which has become confused. I will re-shuffle to make this work better. Cnbrb (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cnbrb: I'd advice you don't re-shuffle it around and leave it as is instead, because the whole "associated with" thing wasn't an "existing" category structure per say, because one user moved and redirected a few normal categories (like logos of media companies) to it a while a back and fragmented the whole thing. The "associated with" is a completely unnecessarily "middle category" inserted into the already existing categories though. It serves zero purpose, just makes things impossible to categorize properly, and has led to a bunch of fragmentation/redundancy. Logos of things aren't "associated" with the thing anyway. So, you should really just leave it as is. I've been spending some time organizing the categories back to "normal" and cleaning things up. I'd appreciate if I wasn't impeded in doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've re-ordered it to make sense. The "associated with" category level already exists under Category:Logos of companies by association - it's now consistent with sibling categories as a meta category, and almost everything is now moved to Category:Logos of media companies, which is more sensible (although much diffusion is needed there).

It sounds like you may want to propose having the whole "associated with" category level deleted if you think it's redundant - that should be a lot easier for you to achieve now. Cnbrb (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I had thought about it. Except the deletion guidelines suggest redirecting where we can and I wanted to try to put specific logos in better categories where I can first anyway. I still might though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the logos are a nightmare. Two places that may assist with diffusion are Category:Logos of media companies by location and Category:Logos of media companies by medium. It's a lot of work trying to work out where an individual logo belongs! Cnbrb (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate category tree

Hi. If here exist since 2011 continually a category tree Category:Radio station logos, please respect the consensual naming conventions and don't create a duplicate category tree Category:Logos of radio stations.

If you really have very serious reasons to rename the whole categorization tree, try to open a CfD discussion, but so far I have a feeling that those duplicate categories disrupt the long-term consensus and consistency of categorization. The category redirect created by IagoQnsi was certainly OK. --ŠJů (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, you should have waited until after you left me the message to revert me. Second, was there a discussion about it in 2011 where this consensus you say exists came from? Because as it is logos are spread across a lot of different categories. Most of which have been around for a while. How long they have existed for doesn't make them the right or wrong way do things. Nor does it mean there was any community based consensus for there to be multiple categories for the same things either. Also, is there a guideline somewhere that says categories can't be improved or standardized just because of their age?

Personally, I think your revert disrupts consistency and doesn't follow the long term consensus. Since you just have to look at all the other categories of logos where "logos" is the first word and then what the subject of the logo follows it. Many other categories follow the same syntax to. For instance categories of postcards. As it that's just how English works. It makes things a lot easier that way. Otherwise your needlessly convoluting things and forcing people to search for a specific thing instead of standardizing search terms for logos. Which is what they are really looking for. Especially if you add other things to it. "Radio station logos" might work just for that, but once you add things like the frequency, genre, and country it gets confusing. "Logos of rock FM radio stations in Europe" makes way more sense then something like "Radio station logos of FM rock in Europe" or some other nonsensical crap. Really, which is more disruptive to organizing radio station logos, the first example or the second one? I'd say your way of it doing it is. Which is born out by the fact that your status quo way of doing things has mostly just resulted in almost a hundred thousand logos not being categorized. Let alone 350 logos in the "Radio station logos" category haven't been put in subcategories. Exactly because your way of doing it doesn't allow for them to be.

So, You can just look at the numbers to see that "Radio station logos of FM rock in Europe" isn't the best way to do things. Aside from the fact it's just clearly ridiculous. That doesn't even include "Radio logos" (whatever that means). Which has been around a year longer then "Radio station logos", but means exactly the same thing and doesn't contain logos of radios. If we went with your "We should go with what's been around the longest" standard that's what we would be using right now. "Not Radio station logos." So, I fundamentally disagree with you that IagoQnsi's redirect was OK. "Radio station logos" doesn't allow for subcategories in a sane way, it doesn't follow established conventions, it's clearly not consistent, and I don't feel the need to open a CfD about something that's clearly the better to do things just because you think the longest existing category always wins. Otherwise, we would be going with "radio logos." Which I'm not doing. Whatever your opinion about it is. Thanks though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't have to explicit. If no one in nine years has seen fit to rename the category, it is assumed to have implicit consensus, and there needs to be a discussion to change it. Per Commons:Rename a category, there needs to be discussions for renames "where a category name has been in use for a long time or a lot of items, or where the naming policy is unspecific." Start a CfD. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: there's currently a discussion about this on the administrator noticeboard. I guess we will see how it goes. Although, I never said it had to be explicit, I was just interested in if there was a past discussion about it. Since there is two competing categories already that have been around and used for about the same time, Category:Radio logos and Category:Radio station logos. Category:Radio logos has actually been around longer and has more logos in it then Category:Radio logos. Which made me think there wasn't consensus (explicit or otherwise) about what category should be used. Especially since @ŠJů: doesn't seem to care about Category:Radio logos even though it's been around longer etc.

Also, like the guideline says a controversial rename is one "where the naming policy is unspecific." There would be zero way to know if there is a naming policy without looking into it and I don't feel like doing an CfD on something that has already one. Let along doing one just because random grifter with a bad attitude has a problem with my edit. Nor do I think it's what the guideline means by a "controversial edit." Otherwise, this whole thing would grind to a halt because we would have to do CfDs for everything. The guideline seems rather arbitrary anyway though.

Personally, I don't consider 149 logos that many. There's been categories with just as many that were moved and redirected without it being a problem. So, it's not really clear when the whole "a lot of items" part of the guideline applies. Also, some people would think a few years is a longtime. Whereas, I don't. Plus, it's pretty worthless to have a guideline about what should be done in cases where there is a specific naming policy when just asking if there is one gets the person reported to the incident noticeboard and accused of doing "guerrilla" editing to intentionally damage the project. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, it seems there's an extremely backlog of CfDs that aren't being dealt with as it is anyway. While in meantime anyone with half a brain can see that the categories for logos are ridiculously obtuse and it's leading to the logos not being categorized probably. Personally, I rather the logos get sorted out properly then spend the next couple of years doing a bunch of CfDs at the expensive of the logos just to satisfy every grifter with a bad attitude that comes along. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what we name categories. Except that the current scheme clearly doesn't work and get's in the way sub-categorizing things. I'm just adding a few extra words to make it easier. It's not like I'm trying to drastically change what the categories are called or completely F the system up like @ŠJů: is acting as if I am. Plenty of people change, move, and redirect categories all the time with doing CfDs. I don't see any particular reason to do it here except to satisfy a tantrum thrower. Which isn't why the guidelines exist. So, I'm not going to do one at this point for the categories he has a problem with (and it wasn't just "Radio station logos") unless things drastically change or there's an extremely good reason to. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename request

Hi, you suggested something in a request. I saw it, but did nothing with it, a mistake. Maybe you can always leave the unique LCCN reference in the filename? P.a.: See here and consider if it's really necessary to rename the file? Thanks, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Metacats

Hello, Adamant1. I noticed that you have created some "by name" categories and labelled them as metacategories. Not all "by name" categories are metacats, and I have changed the template on them to {{Catcat}} instead.

A metacat is a category whose subcategories group multiple things that have something in common. Some "by name" categories do this, but some do not. For example, in Category:Hotels by name each subcategory includes information about multiple hotels that have the same name; that makes it a metacat. One of the categories you created was Category:Mutual organizations by name, has subcategories that each contain information about only one organization; that means it is not a metacat.

Don't feel bad about this, because it's confusing that the words "by name" are used in these different ways. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was wondering what the difference was. Now that I think I guess it makes sense because Catcat probably stands for "category of categories." Anyway, I'll try to watch out for that next time and change any that I might have messed up when I run across them. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bus operators in the United States by name

What is the purpose of Category:Bus operators in the United States by name? It seems to me that it just adds an additional layer of categories to sort through, without any real benefit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

So the named categories aren't cluttering up the main category and also to go along with the millions of other various "X companies in Y by name" categories, because that's the usual conventions for how to categorize such things. For example Companies by name --> X companies in Y by name --> Y companies in Z Etc. Etc. Rinse, repeat, and so on and so forth. Otherwise, you have hundreds of "whatever companies" categories in the main category when there is no reason to and every file in the named categories having fifteen different location based categories that they don't need. The benefit is the crap being organized in a sane, understandable way. Plus it allows for the categories to be included in the various "name" flat lists. That said, I wasn't the one that came up with categorizing things in that way. It's done all over Commons for a ton of different categories. So, if you think it's not something worth doing then I'm really the right person to bring it up to. Since I can't really change wider precedence or well established practices. personally, I don't care that much. Except when it's 300 categories it makes things in the main category a lot harder to sort through. Really, I'm sort of surprised that you don't already know all that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

First and last warning

Your clueless and smug vandalism is not appreciated. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate the accusations or insults. There's nothing clueless, smug, or let alone vandalism about requesting the deletion of unnecessary categories. Everything in it was already in Logos of Fox Channels and (or) other categories related to Fox logos. So what exactly are you giving me a "last and final" warning about? Generally, you should really have a reason outside of baseless accusations, hollow threats, and condescension to revert someone. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Adamant1. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

• As a personal note, I tend to have better success both online and in real life when I err on the side of being collegial and polite. Being collegial and polite is kindof the wares we trade in here. I might recommend giving it a shot. GMG^talk 13:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to be polite to people on here and in real life to, but only when people are polite to me in return. I don't act like a boot licking suck up to people who berate and threaten me multiple times for no reason though. No matter the communication medium. I wouldn't expect you (or anyone else) to either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Meh. I normally prefer dry sarcastic mild derision, but only when absolutely necessary. GMG^talk 16:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably a good call. I need to work on my sarcastic mild derision skills. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Banca Popolare di Bari Logo.png

And also:

• File:BMO Harris Logo.png
• File:Citibanamex Logo.png
• File:Banque Dupuy de Parseval Logo.png
• File:Capital Bank Financial Corp Logo.png
• File:Banco di Sardegna Logo.jpg
• File:Agrobank Malaysia Logo.svg
• File:Banca Carige logo.png
• File:Banco di Sicilia Logo.png
• File:Banco Internacional Ecuador.png
• File:Banco Internacional.png
• File:Banco di Napoli Logo.jpg
• File:Banco Popolare di Sondrio Logo.png
• File:Banco Popolare di Novara Logo.jpg

Yours sincerely, — Racconish ^💬 09:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Reponse

I will stop nominating files and logos for deletion. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Banque Dupuy de Parseval Logo.png

File:Banque Dupuy de Parseval Logo.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Banca Popolare di Bari Logo.png

File:Banca Popolare di Bari Logo.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:BMO Harris Logo.png

File:BMO Harris Logo.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Citibanamex Logo.png

File:Citibanamex Logo.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Banco di Sardegna Logo.jpg

File:Banco di Sardegna Logo.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Banco di Sicilia Logo.png

File:Banco di Sicilia Logo.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Banco Internacional.png

File:Banco Internacional.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Banco di Napoli Logo.jpg

File:Banco di Napoli Logo.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Banco Popolare di Sondrio Logo.png

File:Banco Popolare di Sondrio Logo.png 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Banco Popolare di Novara Logo.jpg

File:Banco Popolare di Novara Logo.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Racconish ^💬 09:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Why remove this category?

Can you explain this category removal? There are many more similar covers in the same category. Ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's an ongoing project to not have covers and postcards in the same category. Since they aren't the same and it's an 'apples and oranges" category. The fact that there's still more in the category to be better categorized doesn't really matter. I'm in the middle of going through similar categories. It's also a task for people who are members of Wikiproject postcards. So I'd appreciate if you either helped out by better categorizing things like I have been or leave my edits related to it alone. I or someone else will get around to removing the other files from the category eventually. in fact I'm in the middle of doing it right now. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem arises is that, from a philatelic point of view, the postally used side of a postcard is a philatelic item of equal standing with an envelope, newspaper wrapper, aerogram, or postal stationery postcard, etc,. The picture side of a (picture) postcard, or an unused side of such a postcard are of little interest to philatelists. I think we need to figure out a better solution which may mean renaming the category or using a different category so that both interested parties are included in a solution instead of merely removing such items from a valid category. It might better to move such an image to Category:Postcards with stamps of Germany instead of removing the category it was in. Thought? Ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. Which is why Category:Postcards with stamps of Germany exists in the first place, because I was the one that created the whole "postcards with stamps of X country" category scheme in the first place and why I have not just removed Category:Postcards and covers with stamps of Germany from any postcards. Obvious I'm planning on using the existing category. So your question isn't really an issue. That aside though, I don't think the things you mention are on "equal footing" to the point that it justifies an apples and oranges category like Category:Postcards and covers with stamps of Germany.

Otherwise it kind of begs the question why not take the step of creating Category:Postcards and covers and newspaper wrapper and aerograms and postal cards with stamps of Germany if they are all of equal footing? Or hell, why not just make more two subject categories like Category:Postcards and postal cards with stamps of Germany + Category:Postcards and newspaper wrapper with stamps of Germany + Category:Postal cards and aerograms with stamps of Germany Etc. Etc.? I'm sure you would agree with me that wouldn't be a helpful way to do things. So the end game is to delete Category:Postcards and covers with stamps of Germany and just let people look for postcards with German stamps, postal covers of Germany, Etc. Etc. if that's what they want.

As a side to that, you get into some really fuzzy semantic tertiary when you claim there is such a thing as something like a postal cover not from Germany with a stamp of Germany. What makes something a postal cover of "X country" is that it has a stamp from "X country." So a category like Category:Postal covers of Germany with stamps of Germany would be super redundant. Same for one like Category:Postal covers of the United States with stamps of Germany. In the last case the image can just go in Category:Postal covers of the United States + Category:Postal covers of Germany. Otherwise you risk getting into to some really obtuse and un-manageable territory like Category:Postal covers of Germany with stamps of Germany and stamps of the United States or some nonsense. Hopefully all that adds some clarity to what I'm doing and eases your mind about it. There's no scenario where I'm going to just remove a category without putting the file in a "better" one. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Adamant1, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

rubin16 (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Help

Your welcome. I can't move the "Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1923, all stamps" since it's under discussion. Please cancel the discussion. --Matsievsky (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I'm not really sure how to close a discussion and have other things going right. So it might be a bit, but I'll close it eventually, or you can if you feel like it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You reverted my edit to this category. Perhaps you need to actually look at the content of the category where you will see there are several postcards in addition to postal cards. Several are even described correctly as postcards. Please reinstate my accurate edit. If this is not to your liking then perhaps you need to move all the postcards to a different category. Ww2censor (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd agree that postcards and postal cards are different things. Given that, I assume that since your the one who originally noticed there were postcards in the category that it would have on you to put those files in the correct category, not just make the whole thing a sub-category of something that doesn't apply to 99% of the files that it contains. Like if someone put in an image of a fish in Category:Politicians, the correct thing do wouldn't be to make Category:Politicians a subcategory of Category:Fish. Let alone would it be "correct" to then complain to whomever inevitably comes along and reverts your ridiculous edit. Obviously just put the image of the fish in Category:Fish and be done with it. Obviously. Could I have done that after I reverted you? Sure. Will I at some point? Maybe. Is it my responsibility to do that though? Not really. Could you have done it in the amount time it took for you to bitch about it on my talk page? 100 percent. Should you have done that originally instead of just making the files part of a subcategory of something that they clearly should be a subcategory of? Again, 100 percent.

BTW, some of the files that are called "postcards" aren't even postcards. It's just that the word for "postal card" and "postcard" are the same in Russian. So it's not as easy as just moving everything that says "postcard" to a category for "postcards." Which is why I haven't moved the files yet myself. Obviously we shouldn't be going of name of the files alone to determine what category something should go in. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Gigasports logo.png

Yours sincerely, Wcam (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Soviet postal items

Hi, See my post on the Village Pump. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Hi again. Please use {{subst:nac}} or "(non-admin closure)" when closing DRs as a non-admin, instead of what you did here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know that was an option. Where in the DR is it suppose to go? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearing the air

Hi, sorry to offend you. I accept the criticism that I could have looked at the article about the Turkish guy in Google Translate. It's not a good article. But I'd still be reluctant to delete that photo, because his name has a lot of hits online, so he may be a serious artist even if he's not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. As an admin on Wikivoyage, we delete promotional stuff all the time, but there's much less of a gray area in dealing with promotions of individuals on a travel guide than there is on a repository of images. Anyway, we can discuss this more in the deletion request thread.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries. It happens. I appreciate the message though. If you think it's better to keep the image I'm fine with that. I just don't like encouraging SPAs, but I'm willing to take your word that it's worth keeping. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's arguable; I just prefer to err on the side of keeping. It's legitimate to disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hi, an user moves Pakistan's cities page names to local language, kindly restore اِسلام آباد back to Islamabad and لاہَور back to Lahore. 103.141.159.231 10:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I at least changed Islamabad. Lahore has been a redirect for like 10 years now though and I feel like there should be a discussion about it somewhere more mainstream then a random persons talk page before it's changed. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Ok but at least restore previous 5 month old Lahore - لاہور title of the page which includes both English and local Urdu language.

And i noticed on wikimedia commons people easily moved pages here and no one takes notice of that, I watched many pages which was moved 3 to 4 times.

For example first Lahore was moved to لہور then moved to Lahore - لاہور now present-day to لاہور and this will continue.

And I also advice you keep اِسلام آباد as a redirect link to Islamabad, it will be useful redirect and will prevent future page moveing.103.141.159.231 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that can happen. One person wants a category called one thing and another person want's it called something else so they go back and forth endlessly about it. That's why I suggested there be a discussion about this somewhere else besides a random persons talk page. I left a message on محمد-عثمان's talk page saying that English is usually the preferred language for category and page names, but I would still suggest that you start a discussion thread on either or Lahore saying that you'd prefer the article be title be in English. I don't really feel like doing it myself at the cost of other people who have edited the page over the last ten years and don't seem to care if the title is in Arabic. As far as redirection versus deletion of اِسلام آباد goes, part of the reasons thing go back and forth so much is because it's extremely easy to revert a redirect, but it's harder to justify recreating a page. So deleting it is the best avenue to stop there being an issue. I guess you could redirect it if you want to though. Really, why aren't you making these edits yourself? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I decided to keep اِسلام آباد as redirect and I moved لاہَور to Lahore, i leaved message on محمد-عثمان talk page, He is not active from past 3 month, I will keep eye on articles if anyone wants to moved them I will discuss with him. 103.141.159.231 05:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That works. I doubt there will be an issue if محمد-عثمان hasn't been active for awhile. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

ANU

Hi, See the thread which concerns you on COM:ANU#Adamant1. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I did. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Badclause_rap.jpg

hi, all copyright of the rap artist belongs to me. I even confirmed it in these files nominated for removal: File:Insomnie albomu cover.png File:Havaodsutorpaq albomu cover.jpg File:Sonuncu səhifə albomu cover.png File:Mən Piyanam albomu cover.jpg File:Qızılgül albomu cover.jpg Atakhanli (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fieglhuber Gutscher M Wassertraegerin.jpg

Hello Adamant1,

you mentioned the same file twice in this DR. Did you actually mean another file when you wrote "Same goes for […]"? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. I don't know how that happened. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Goiginger-Kaserne, Kunst am Bau 01.jpg, 4 photos from Kiki Kogelnik

Hello Admint1: Please keep all 4 photos, because other users (Nik L.) see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Karner_Stein_im_Jauntal#/media/File:Karner_Stein_im_Jauntal_Kogelnik_01.jpg, He actually has published photos of interiors by the famous artist Kiki Kogelnik. Thank you very much for your kindness. Naturpuur (Diskussion) 15:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Naturpuur (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but obviously we shouldn't just ignore Austria's copyright laws because multiple users uploaded image that they probably shouldn't have. It's on whomever uploads the images to make sure they weren't violating the law by doing so. See COM:PCP and COM:EVID. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

File:I. Robbins & Sons logo.tif

File:I. Robbins & Sons logo.tif 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Yann (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Adamant1. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please be civil

---

You are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. If your behaviour is not moderated, you may be blocked from further editing.

You just won't let it go will you? I'm not your enemy. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not your enemy either, and any userblock that may be instituted on you will be done reluctantly and only after the failure of all less drastic options. If you disagree with another editor's position on a given issue, that's fine. There's a way to do that civilly. The template I placed above offers a link to our policy page on civility, which among other things defines what civility is and isn't. I would urge you to review that page. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure dude. Whatever you say. I'm aware of what the civility policy says, but at the same time I'm not going to be repeatedly attacked by you and accused of laying or gaslighting by you without providing some "feedback" in the interim. Sorry, but I'm into the hazing ritual that you seem to be trying to force me into. If my unwillingness to sit quality while degraded leads to me being blocked, so be it. That said, how about we review the civility page together. It seems like you need a brush up as much as I do. Second point down "Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with." Seems you ignored that one. Third one down "Try not to get too intense." Hhhmm, your last message in the AUN was pretty intense. "Be professional", does the shoe fit there? Sadly I've have to say no. What about "Avoid condescension"? No insult, but you've been pretty condensing. Not that I can't be that way myself sometimes, but then I'm also not randomly plastering the civility template on people's talk pages like you are. Nor am I an admin. And here I thought admins were suppose to follow higher standards of behavior then plebs like me do. I guess not. Go figure. Anyway, I think I've made my point. Cheers. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It says "be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with". It doesn't say "don't". As I said elsewhere, this situation went on and intensified for a day and a half before any templates came into the picture. I'd say that's being careful almost to a fault. If anything, I bear a share of the blame for the disruption by not acting sooner. As for intensity, professionality, and condescension, listen: I have been an admin on wikis for many years now, first at Wikivoyage and then here. I have learned how to properly deal with disputes and I applied that knowledge here. I kept a cool head as much as I was able to do, which is not to say I acted perfectly, but I did pretty darn good. I held off on even thinking about using the admin tools or making any kind of user block threats until I had exhausted all other options. Contrary to what you've repeatedly claimed, I never personally attacked you. I took great care to always address your behavior, which is changeable, and never you yourself or your intrinsic qualities. I never used foul language, I never called you names or anything of that nature. Last night I said something to the effect of "your embarrassing inability to handle losing an argument" which was over the line, and I apologize. Now as I said before, I really and truly don't want to block you. I would much rather collaborate, or at least coexist uneventfully, with you. And I would like nothing more than to walk away from this issue and go back to what I really enjoy doing, which is adding content to this wiki. You can do the same thing, we can both step back from the brink, and everything that happened yesterday and today can be just a bad memory. Please, I beg of you, consider that option. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Yann (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: What exactly am I blocked for? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "Unfortunately the blocking administrator didn't provide a reason for the block. So I can't really say why I think I should be unblocked. Except I don't think "nothing" is a justifiable reason to block someone and I'd like to get back to what I was in the middle of working on when I was blocked. Thanks." Unblock reason: "Per below. In the future, please avoid inserting yourself unnecessarily in matters that do not concern you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

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

•  Oppose You have been blocked for trolling, after I warned you all that I would block anyone going on there. Yann (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but where did you warn "us all" that you would block anyone going on there? Because I wasn't involved in the discussion outside of my initial vote to block the two problematic users and never saw or received a warning not to participate in the discussion. All your last message said was "I already sent a last warning to this user." Nothing about that has anything to do with me or anyone else not continuing the discussion except the three users who gave warnings to not contact each other, which I wasn't included in. I don't really see what's "trolling" about giving my opinion on if something was a warning or not either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: I don't see anything block-worthy in your diff. In fact Adamant1's behavior in the section above about the CfD is more problematic, but given that the other party to the dispute considers it resolved, I see no need for a block based on that behavior either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO Adamant1's posts were not useful at all. I feel they just put fuel in the fire. Now I could consider that the warning was received, and won't oppose unblocking. Yann (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "See my last message. I never received a warning not to participate in the AUN discussion that he linked to despite his claim to the contrary. Nor do I see a warning to that effect anywhere in the AUN complaint itself. Let alone did he ever tell me anywhere in the AUN not to participate in it anymore. I also don't see how it's "trolling" to quote an administrator and give my opinion about if they issued someone a warning or not. So I request that the blocking administrator either provide a diff for the warning that he supposedly gave me and explain what was trolling about the message he reverted, or unblock me since this whole thing seems to be completely meritless. Thanks." Unblock reason: "See above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

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

@Yann: BTW, I noticed your comment on Pofkas talk page "Otherwise it will always seem to defend your PoV against another PoV. I warned them all to stop trolling and editwarring. One is already blocked. Others will be if they continue." Just for the record, I didn't have anything to do with the whole thing with the flags or anything else involving any of them except for "voting" in the deletion request. Let alone do I have a POV in relation to the dispute that I've pushed anywhere or edit wared anyone to defend a certain point of view about the flags. I literally had nothing to do with the dispute except for "voting" in a deletion request and then saying I thought the two users should be blocked for disruption. I didn't even take a side in the AUN complaint either because IMO both them of were in the wrong. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't implicate me in behavior from other users that I have nothing to do with, act like I'm somehow associated with certain groups of users that I essentially have no history of interacting with, or say I'm somehow "defending a PoV" related to other people's disputes about the flags that I'm not defending. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

MTG image

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene portrait.jpg this image you previously commented to delete, was recreated. Andre🚐 00:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Creator templates?

Could I ask why you're tagging so many of them for deletion? Thank you. DS (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I think I tagged like 3 or 4. So it's not really that many. Even if was the though, I tagged them because there isn't any files on here created by the people. Ergo, there's zero point in having creator templates for them (if I remember correctly one of the people's works are copyrighted until like 2030). I'm sure you'd agree that there is no point in having creator templates that clearly aren't going to be used any time soon if ever. It's not like they aren't extremely easy to recreate if that changes either. So I don't really see what the issue here is. As a side to that, I see you reverted the speedy delete request I made to A. D. Storms because it's supposedly in use. What files exactly is it being used on? Because I can't find any. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What Links Here shows this. DS (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of the book. That said, I don't think someone who edited a book can really be credited as it's creator or whatever. Especially in this case since nothing in the book seems to have been created by A. D. Storms. It's just a bunch of illustrations by other people. Not to mention it's just one file. There's zero point in having a creator template for someone that only has one file on Commons of something they didn't even really create in the first place. To quote from Commons:Creator "Who should not have creator page: People who are not, and are unlikely to ever be, creators of works hosted on Commons, for example people like Genghis Khan or various saints. Creator pages are templates meant to be transcluded in many files." Even if I was to concede that he was the creator of the book (which I don't), I'm sure you'd agree that one book isn't multiple "works." Nor would it allow for the template to be transcluded in "many files" either. (BTW, I'd say the same thing goes for your reverts of my edits to Creator:Alan Butterworth and Creator:Alfred Anscombe. Neither of them are creators of multiple "works." Nor can their creator templates be transcluded in "many files.") --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly recommend that you use more detailed edit summaries than just "G8" or "speedy", then. Your initial assertion — that the template is not in use — is false. Your subsequent assertion — that the template's use is inappropriate — may well have merit. By including that in your edit summary, you'd make things easier for the admins. DS (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure Storms wrote all the text in that book, which is dozens of pages, each of which is a separate image. DS (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the credits the book was complied by Storms and he's credited as the books editor in other places. I assume he'd just credited as the author if he wrote it himself instead compiling it from other sources. I also doubt he individually interviewed all 158 people that there are images for. Probably he just sent them all a boiler plate questionnaire that they all filled out for the book, which in that case he wouldn't have been the writer. Although really it's a distinction without a purpose since the template is for the "creator" of the files, which in this case would be the individual portraits that he clearly didn't create. There isn't 158 files of the text if he wrote it or not though. Anyway, I'll try and use more detailed edit summaries next time. To me it was obvious that G8 applied since the title of it is "Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content" and creator templates depend on "many" files to be useful, which doesn't exist when there's only one file. But whatever. Apparently that's to nuanced of a reading for some people. So I'll try to make it clearer going forward. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

So you believe that a Creator template used on only one page should be deleted, and replaced by a link to the Wikidata Q number? Is that it? DS (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Essentially (but with the caveat that there's zero or almost zero chance of the person ever having other pages associated with them). Otherwise it causes problems with the various maintenance categories for creator templates and makes maintaining them essentially impossible. I discussed it with the creator of the template, User:Jarekt, and that was the option they gave me. Obviously there should be a balance between providing people information and how your doing providing it not screwing up other things down the line or making it harder for other editors. At this point creator templates are just superficial pass-throughs for Wikidata entries anyway. So I don't see why it matters outside of tendentious editing on the side of the few people who want there to be creator templates for everyone and their dog and don't care if it comes at the cost of other things.

Personally, I would be fine excluding creator templates for single work creators from the maintenance categories if there was a way to, since it's not something I ultimately care that much about or want to deal with the drama over, but according to Jarekt there isn't a way to do that. In the case of Anders Hallin specifically, chalk it up to the convoluted name. Mistakes will be made sometimes, obviously. You should have added his creator template to his other works when you created it if you knew they exited at the time though. Otherwise it seems like your just doing bot-like editing, while disregarding if the creator templates you create are ultimately serving their intended purpose or not. Really, that's kind of how it comes off anyway. Like with Anders Hallin you only added the creator template to his other works when I nominated it for deletion and didn't bother to add a Wikidata link to his category. Yet you seem to have more then enough time and energy to come here and get in a row with me over the whole thing. That's how bot editors usually tend to act when someone eventually comes along to clean up the clutter. If I happen to nominate a creator template for deletion and it turns out the template isn't unnecessary, great. That's a win in my book. But you really should have determined that yourself when you created it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"The uploader is the subject depicted in the image" as reason for deletion

Perhaps you might wish to comment at Commons_talk:Deletion_policy on discussion I just started regarding the statement "The uploader is the subject depicted in the image. So we need COM:VRT permission from the original photographer to host the file". Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

---

 

You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

As it was already advised to you above, do not create speedy deletion requests for templates (or anything for that matter) in use. Thanks, --Yann (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: The only reason the creator was in use is because you reverted the edit where I removed it from File:MA I266055 TePapa Memorial-plaque full.jpg. It's a little ridiculous to threaten and accuse me of something like that. The template obviously wasn't in use when I nominated it for deletion. Also, I've already told you on your talk page I discussed this an administrator, Ping:Jarekt who told me that single file templates which are unlikely to get more files can be switched to {{Creator|Wikidata=Q.....}} format. Since they screw with the maintenance templates. I'd appreciate it if you took it up with him if you disagree with that instead of threating me on my talk page for simply doing what an administrator told me to. Really, you should have done that the first time I told you that's what he said to do instead of ignoring my message. At this point the whole thing really just comes off like bad faithed harassment on your part. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Can you please explain to @Yann: what the problem with single file templates that are unlikely to get more files is since he's apparently unwilling to get the point or otherwise have an actual discussion about it? This should really be worked out in a more reasonable way then one side falsely accusing the other of vandalism and threatening to block people. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yann and Adamant1: Creator template maintenance categories were designed to provide uniform quality creator templates, with enough metadata about the creator, category collecting creator's works, associated wikidata item, etc. In some cases, like in case of creators who are unlikely to have more than one work, or for whom it is for some reason unnecessary to create creators category, we are better off without creator template which will forever clutter maintenance categories. We can use alternative, approaches like {{Creator|Wikidata=Q.....}} format, or even just switching to |author=Q.... notation for {{Artwork}} and {{Book}} templates as it provides the same visual output. I had seen some files, where a single file had a couple dozen authors and someone created creator templates for each one of them. It was kind of silly to create few dozen author categories with a single same fine in them. Adamant1, I did not follow all the discussions above, however Commons community operates on the idea of consensus, so if you notice that others have strong opinions that what you are doing is wrong then it is time to have a discussion about what is a compromise acceptable to all the parties involved. The last thing we want is to waste multi[le people's time on verbal sparring, edit wars, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jarkekt: That's fine. Thanks for explaining it. As far as your comment that there should be a discussion about it, I suggested it be discussed on the templates talk page multiple times and I left people messages about it on their talk pages. Including Yann. No one was willing to discuss it. While I agree that there shouldn't be verbal sparring or edit wars, at the same time I didn't edit war anyone who removed the speedy deletion requests and I wasn't the one who was unwilling to have the discussion. I'd be interested to know what the options are when other people are unreasonable and won't discuss something though. Especially in cases where the edits I'm doing clearly follow what the guideline said and follows what an administrator says. Yann shouldn't be able to ignore all attempts on my part to resolve things and then block me for edit warring or whatever just to get his way either. I don't think I reverted anyone three times within a 24-hour period and I've done everything to discuss things on my side. Otherwise I'd like to see some evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, you have people like Guido den Broeder making extremely drastic changes to the creator template guideline and disingenuously calling it simple copyediting, while also lying that I'm in favor of completely deprecating the template when that's clearly not my position. So I'm not the one with the issue here. I've gone out of my way to be civil about this and follow the usual processes for resolving disputes. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User problems noticeboard

I have opened a section about your editwarring here. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guido den Broeder: Thanks. Considering the timing this seems rather retaliatory for me opening the ANI complaint about Yann. To bad I was blocked before I could give my side of things. I will say though that your assertion that I'm in favor of deprecating the template, or at least minimize its use is clearly false. I suggest you read my comments and the ones made by Jarekt's above this. Nowhere have I said anything about either deprecating the template, minimizing it's use, or anything else along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW, as a side to that I've said in multiple places that I'm fine with the Creator template guideline being edited. I just think the exact wording should be discussed first instead of potentially drastic changes being made to it on a whim. Like I said on your talk page that's usually what the process is for making major changes to guidelines. In no way does that mean I think I own the page or whatever though. It shouldn't be that hard to get the facts right. Especially if your going to get someone blocked over them. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Yann (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

{{Unblock}} Again you blocked for something that didn't happen. Otherwise where have I been warned multiple times about edit warning and where did I edit war anyone? No one warned about edit waring multiple times and haven't performed more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Really this block just comes off as a bad faith abuse of your administrator tools because I reported you to ANI. I'd appreciate if I was unblocked since this is as meritless as your last block was. Otherwise provide some evidence.}}

 Oppose You were warned multiple times, 1, stop edit-warring; 2, not to create deletion requests for Creator templates used somewhere. Yann (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Like to explain why you blanked and undone the blanking a short time later[1]? Seems rather disruptive and unconstructive. Bidgee (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bidgee: Sure. The template was added to the maintenance categories and had a warning on it that it was missing a home category or something. Which I fixed. blanking template and then undone the blanking allows it to then be cleared out of the maintenance categories and causes the warning to not be there anymore. Which is why I did it to Creator:Adolph_Fries. I think that's because it clears the pages cache or something. Otherwise I've gone back to the maintenance categories a couple of days later and the template will still be in there with the warning. It's obviously not my preferred way of clearing up things and maybe there's a better way to do it. But if there is an alternative to blanking the templates I'm not aware of what it would be. Maybe that's something you or Jarekt can provide an answer to though? I'm fine with not blanking the templates if there is another way to get rid of the warnings that also clears them out of the maintenance categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried purging or adding a space under the template? Typically one of these fixes it. To manually purge, add purge after action= in the url (action=purge) example url https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creator:Adolph_Fries&action=purge or you could add “Page Purge” from the gadgets in your preferences.

Also include an edit summary so other contributors can see what you are doing. Bidgee (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I wasn't aware that was an option. I'll have to try it if or when I edit creator templates again. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Again, where was I warned multiple time's to stop edit-warring and where did I perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period? Because as far as I can tell neither one happened. Also, I was told by an administrator that what I was doing was fine. I shouldn't be blocked for following the recommendation of an administrator or or for edit waring that didn't happen. Nor was I warned multiple times not to war anyone either. Otherwise, provide some evidence like I've asked for or unblock me if your unwilling to. @Yann: BTW, you also supposedly blocked me for "creating deletion requests for Creator templates used somewhere", which is exactly what you gave me the vandalism warning about. As far as I know I didn't create any deletion requests for any creator templates that were being used after you gave me the warning. So I'd be interested to know where I "created deletion requests for Creator templates used somewhere" after you gave me the warning, or did you block me for not doing something again after you warned me about it? Maybe it's just me, but it's kind of ridiculous to block someone for doing what you asked. Otherwise, I'd like to know what used creator template I did a deletion request for after you gave me the warning." Decline reason: "You refused to answer my questions. I'm afraid, that after the block ends, third block will follow soon. I will not edit your userpage, because you are not retired, but blocked. Taivo (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

Adamant, now you have been blocked twice during one month and you must answer these questions.

1. What have you learned from these blocks?
2. Is it possible, that you will be blocked third time soon after unblock? Why? Why not?
3. How will you act differently, when unblocked? Taivo (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Taivo: I don't have the urge or the time to answer your questions right now. Sorry. Can you do me a favor though by blanking my user page and adding Template:Retired to it since I can't and don't have any urge to edit anymore for a while if at all after I'm unblocked? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Taivo: I didn't refuse to answer your questions. I just said I didn't have the time or urge to answer them right now since it's like 4am here and I'm about to go to bed. I actually have the answers in a word file and was going to post them when I woke up in the morning. Honestly if you had of just said up front that there was timer to the whole thing I would have answered the questions right after you asked me them. My bad for thinking I could wait a few hours and sleep first. Things like that are exactly why I'm leaning towards not wanting to contribute to this project anymore once I'm unblocked. Honestly, why would I want to deal with that kind of behavior? I'm just a volunteer man. I do this in my free time when I have insomnia. I'm not obligated to answer your questions at 4am just because you aren't willing to wait a few hours. If I get blocked again because I'm not willing to jump through ridiculous hoops like that, cool. That's on you. I'm not super worried about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "According to Appealing a block an appropriate reason for appealing a block will include "An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines or is likely to be a mistake." I did the last two unblock request's based on the reason that the block was a mistake because I didn't do what I'm being accused of. In both cases the administrator who denied the blocked did ignored the reasons I gave for why the block was a mistake and didn't give any evidence of me doing the behavior that supposedly led to the block. I think have a right to appeal the block based on it being a mistake if the guidelines say it's an appropriate reason for appealing a block without the appeal reason being ignored by the administrators. Both reasons for why I was supposedly blocked, "Edit warring after warnings and "Creating speedy deletion requests for templates that are in use.", should be easy to prove if they both happened since there should be diffs of me doing the those things and messages containing the warnings. It's not unreasonable to request that either that evidence be provided by an administrator or I be unblocked. As far as me providing an explanation of why the block is a mistake, I think "I didn't the things I was blocked for supposedly doing and never received the warnings that Yann claims I received" speaks for itself." I am more then willing to provide a more in-depth analysis of exactly what happened and why I didn't what I was blocked for, but it would be extremely long and I don't think it should be necessary. Although again I'm more then willing to provide it if there is no other option to having this reviewed based on the actual merits of it was inappropriate or otherwise a mistake. As an alternative I would be open to answering the questions Taivo had asked me when I did the last block appeal, but it's a little unfair to ask what I've learned from the block when I genuinely have no idea what edits or warnings I was blocked over. I don't think it help anyone or the project in general if I gave speculative answers about what I learned or how I would act differently next time for things that didn't happen just so I can be unblocked. I'm willing to answer his questions if he can provide some examples of the actual problematic behaviors that I was supposedly blocked over though. Although the question if the block was inappropriate or otherwise a mistake should still be addressed in the meantime. I'm not going to answer the questions if they merely serve as a run around to addressing if I should have been blocked in the first place though." Decline reason: "This is little more than bad-faith wikilawyering: The purpose of warning is to ensure a user is aware of the issue. You have been the subject of at least four ANU discussions (08.2020; 06.2021; 08.2022; 09.2022) which explicitly reference your edit warring, and indeed contain admonishments such as "No edit war, please" (to which you responded, and thus were aware). Regardless of whether you believe the reports to have merit, no reasonable person would a) consider this history not to constitute notice (warning) of the prohibition of edit warring or b) purport themselves sincerely not to be on notice (warned) of the issue. You were, in fact, edit warring; for example: 18:37, 13 September 2022 - Yann adds a sentence related to historical creators to Commons:Creator 08:50, 14 September 2022 - Adamant1 removes the sentence 18:37, 14 September 2022 - Yann reverts the removal 00:31, 15 September 2022 - Adamant1 removes the sentence 23:47, 15 September 2022 - Guido den Broeder makes copyedits, including an addition related to historical creators ("Any known historic creator whose works [...]") 11:52, 24 September 2022 - Adamant1 removes the changes. This is the Commons; 3RR, which you appear to reference ("[I] haven't performed more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period") is not a policy here. (Even if it were, 3RR includes "[e]ven without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." (emphasis omitted)) The repeated invocation of 3RR as a defense or implicitly necessary threshold ([2][3][4]) only suggests arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy, which is not inconsistent with the insincere purports related to warnings. If you are unprepared to acknowledge the issue and credibly commit to discontinue, you should be prepared to remain blocked. Эlcobbola talk 19:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

I warned you here on my talk page and gave you ample time to undo your revert before I reported you. You made the conscious choice to ignore my warning, and should have foreseen the consequence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guido den Broeder: OK. I didn't ignore your warning. I just didn't see it because I don't automatically follow pages I edit and you didn't ping me. Plus I've been pretty busy with school, physical therapy twice a week, and dealing with health problems that severally limit how much time I can spend in front of the computer. It's pretty easy for anyone to look through my edit history from the last couple of days and see that I wasn't nearly as active between when you wrote me the message and when you reported me. Sorry, but reading through random user' talk pages to see if they replied to my messages just isn't high on my priority list. I'm sure you'd agree that "Edit warring after receiving warnings" insinuates the person was aware of the warning.

honestly, if I had known about your message I would been fine reverting the edit like you asked me to. That said, lets say I indulge you that I "consciously choose to ignore my warning" I'm not blocked for being warned not to edit war, I'm blocked for "Edit warring after receiving warnings." I assume you get the difference. Not that people are required to do whatever random users tell them to anyway. Otherwise, you and Yann would both be blocked right now for consciously choosing to ignore my request to discuss your edits on the templates talk page before you made them. It doesn't look like either of you are blocked though. So I don't really see what the problem is here either way. That said, I might just be stupid or something. So can you tell me what exactly the issue here is since your the one for who reported me for it? So far we have that I didn't see a message you left me on your talk page. Anything else or is that the gist of it? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This attitude isn't going to help you. You need to address what you did wrong, not search for faults in how other users dealt with it. It's why we let blocked users edit their user talk page, but not their user page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your talking about. Or how I faulted you for anything. I didn't see the message because you didn't ping me and I don't automatically follow pages I edit. That's just a fact. I don't blame you for not pinging me. I don't ping people that much either. It's unfortunate that Yann blocked me almost immediately after you filed the report since that's when I saw the message. Otherwise I would have reverted the edit at that point, profusely apologized, and never had anything to do with the page again. Again though, that's not to place blame on Yann for anything. It's simply how things happened and what I would have done if things went differently. It wasn't "wrong" of me to not see the message though. It's just a thing that can happen sometimes.

IMO the point in someone addressing what they did wrong is to show that they learned a lesson and won't do the thing that caused them to be blocked again. I don't think that would really be served by me picking random things that happened in the past couple of weeks to fault myself for. It's not really the point in the appeal that I assume your first response was replying to either. Obviously if I'm going to address what I did wrong it should be something I actually did. I'm perfectly willing to address things that I'm responsible for though. That's one of the reasons I asked if there was more to your ANU report then me just missing the message on your talk page. But I'm just not going to fault myself for not seeing your message because I don't automatically follow pages I edit. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose User is unwilling to learn from their mistakes. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

hmmm, interesting. I didn't know you were an administrator or that this was a vote. Either way, I'm more then willing to automatically follow pages I edit in the future if you think it would help me avoid problems next time. There's important reasons I don't currently, but whatever. I'm all about solutions and it seems like that's part of what led to the block. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: I quoted the guideline about warring not to Wikilayer but because Commons:Blocking policy specifically says "An appropriate reason will almost always include one of the following: "An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines". So it would have been weird not to include the relevant policies and guidelines that are at issue here in the unblock request. There was no bad faithed intent behind it though and I apologize if that was the wrong way to do the appeal. Also, I'll grant you that there were at least four ANU discussions that I was involved where edit waring was mentioned. But from what I remember none of them resulted in me being sanctioned and people can open an ANU complaint for whatever they want. I make a lot of edits to an extremely wide range of subjects. So it's bound to happen. People open ANU complaints for random things that aren't really issues all the time. I wouldn't read any more then that into it.

On the reverts specifically, I was under the impression that in order to drastically change the wording of a guideline that the edits should be discussed on the talk page of the article first. Which is why I reverted Yann and Guido den Broeder and requested that they discuss their edits before making them. On hindsight I can see why me reverting them wasn't constructive. That said, I don't think it justifies a two week block. But obviously I could have handled the situation better. I'm not saying that the block is unjustified because I'm Jesus or otherwise without sin. I can guarantee that if Yann had of just blocked me for unconstructive editing to the template page that I wouldn't be making an issue out of this right now. That's on him for not being clearer about why I was being blocked and citing things that didn't happen though. At the end of the day he didn't say I was being blocked for reverting him and Guido den Broeder's edits to the templates. That said, I'm more then willing to acknowledge that how I handled it wasn't constructive and commit to not doing it again if he's willing to give that as the reason for why I was blocked. But without adding the other vague nonsense that didn't happen.

There should really be some give and take here though. If I was blocked for making unconstructive edits to the templates page then cool. Yann can give that as the reason for the block without all the other vague nonsense that didn't happen and I'll appeal it based on that. I have zero problem with acknowledge that my edits to the templates page weren't ultimately constructive. I don't think it justifies a two week block, but whatever. I mainly wanted an uninvolved administrator to review this because I've had past issues with Yann and the unblocking guidelines say requests made on user talk pages may only be declined by an uninvolved administrator. Which you did. If you think the block was appropriate in the meantime then fine. I'm not going to argue about it. Yann can change the reason for the block to the unconstructive editing on the templates talk page and I'll appeal it based on that. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "The second and third reverts I made to the creator page where not constructive. I should have perused other avenues to have the page reflect that it isn't necessary to create creator templates for creators of single works. To keep it from happening again I will not revert two editors 3 times on the same article within a ten day period. As to the issue of me supposedly nominating creator that where being used for deletion after receiving the warning, Yann gave me the warning on my talk page at 10:16, on 26 September 2022 and I was blocked for supposedly violating the warning at 14:00, on 26 September 2022. The only creator templates I edited between the warning and where to Category:Alfred Godchaux and Creator:Adolph Fries. I added an infobox to Category:Alfred Godchaux and created Category:Adolph Fries. I didn't nominate either one for deletion, while they were being used or otherwise. So I didn't violate the warning like he said I did. I shouldn't have been blocked for following the directions he gave me in the warning either." Decline reason: "Procedural decline: block has expired. Эlcobbola talk 20:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

Are you still going to revert a single editor 3 times within 10 days, or two editors within 11 days? What would these other avenues be and why do you seek to use them to enforce your preference, instead of discussing it with other users before concluding that it should be reflected? Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No of course not. But then you also said I needed to address what I did wrong that led to the issues and learn from my mistakes. Which I agree with and doesn't include reverting a single editor 3 times within 11 days or whatever. Even if it not be constructive to do so. But no I'm not going to "still" revert a single editor 3 times within 10 days, or two editors within 11 days. Not that I ever did anyways that I'm aware of. Although there's instances, like clear vandalism, where the guidelines say it's fine to revert 1 editor 3 times within a short timeframe. I have no current plans to do it even in that case though.

As far as what the "these other avenues would be", it would really depending on the situation and what had happened prior between me and the other editor/editors that led to the situation. A few would include what Commons:Dispute_resolution says to do. I'm sure there's other avenues. But again it would really depend. Like in this case I followed what Commons:Dispute_resolution says about asking other users for advice by asking Jarekt what to do and it actually made things worse. I'm sure there's situations where that would have been fine to consult other people though. So I don't really think there's a one size fits all answer for every dispute. -Adamant1 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Can you please review the block request since I acknowledged the issue and said I would discontinue it like you said to do if I wanted to be unblocked? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing user page

@Yann: or anyone else, is there a way for me to edit my user page while I'm blocked? Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Antler's_Hotel_(Lake_Cushman,_Washington)

Antler's Hotel (Lake Cushman, Washington) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

ANU

See COM:ANU#Adamant1. Yann (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Kuntz.jpg

Hello Adamant1,

if you want to nominate several files, please actually list them in the deletion request, don't just write something like I'm also nominating all other images of stamps in Category:Stamps by Axel Bengs for the same reason like here. The VisualFileChange gadget (Help:VisualFileChange.js) can assist with listing multiple files. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. No problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Stationers

Was there any consensus that Category:Stationers refers only to people, not companies? I ask because of the effect on File:Seattle - Denny-Coryell Co. - 1900.jpg, which was more of a manufacturer of stationery than it was a stationery store. Same would be true (even more emphatically) of Category:Lowman & Hanford Stationery and Printing Company, though I see I only thought to put it under Category:Printing companies of the United States, and nothing about stationery. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see a discussion about it or feel the need to create one since Wikidata has different entries for stationers shops and stationery shops. Plus, it doesn't make sense to have both in the same category. What exactly would I need to get a consensus on? That images of shops can go in a separate category then images of people do it as a profession? That's already how we do things. I might have just missed it, but I don't see anywhere that the person who originally created Category:Stationery shops and redirected it got a consensus to do so either. Anyway, with places like File:Seattle - Denny-Coryell Co. - 1900.jpg it would probably be fine to put it in a different category other then Category:Stationery shops.

Although it's worth mentioning that the term "stationery" is an extremely broad term to start with and there isn't really a bright line as to if a place/person produces versus sells it. From what I've seen a lot of stationers and stationery shops do both. Just like there isn't really a clear line between a postcard publisher/seller and a postcard manufacture. In same cases cardboard manufacturers just sold the cardboard to photographers and the the photographer printed the images on them. In others the photographer sent negatives to the cardboard manufacturer and they did the printing. In others, the photographer both created the cardboard and printed the image on it. So we just do the best we can when categorizing postcard publishers, photographers who sold postcards, and postcard manufacturers. The important thing IMO is just keeping images of the professional people in separate categories then the companies.

In this case there's clearly a huge difference between a guy who say sells pens door to door and say Category:Cheap Lab Store. To the point that IMO it would be nonsensical to put images of both in the same category. That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to have something like a Category:Stationery manufacturing companies for large corporate stationery producers like File:Seattle - Denny-Coryell Co. - 1900.jpg. I think that would solve the issue. Although I'd love to have what should or shouldn't go in a stationery category clarified beforehand since it seems to be way to general at the moment. Anyway, any thoughts? Ideas? Criticism? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I do think the additional category for stationery manufacturing companies is probably the way to go. I'm not even certain if the Denny-Coryell storefront sold retail, and while Lowman & Hanford had a retail outlet, it was only one of several buildings they had. I know less about other cities in this respect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hhhmmm, well OK. I don't really know what else to say about it then. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or whatever I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Another rando user writes...

After seeing you dismissing the input from a veteran Commons contributor as "some rando user on Commons who says they know something", I think I'll bow out of our discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Asd.gif, and I'd politely suggest altering your comment there before the user logs in and sees it.

I know that Commons:Civility is only an essay over here, but this kind of interaction does affect where people choose to put their time. Belbury (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but am I suppose to magically know he's a veteran Commons contributor or is that fact suppose to automatically make his opinion more authoritative then multiple IP lawyers? Either way, all he told me was that he signed up for a list 20 years ago. That sounds like a rando Commons user to me. It's sure not "I have a law degree and a history in litigating IP cases." Sorry, but I thought we here to figure out the law is. Not just default to whatever opinion comes from the user in the conversation who was lucky enough to sign up for their account first or signed up for a mailing list lmao. Really, my guess is that your just using my comment as an excuse to bow out because you don't have a good answer to my question about the IP lawyers. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's supposed to magically know anything, we're just supposed to try to be polite and respectful to other people on here.

We're trying to work out what Unicode documents mean for Commons copyright policy, with a lawyer's Forbes article for reference. Dismissing someone from that conversation for not having as much authority as the Forbes writer doesn't make much sense; you yourself have no more authority than that either, you're just someone who's read a Forbes article. Belbury (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I don't disagree with that. It's not a one way street though and it was insulting to me for Prosfilaes to ignore the articles and act like they were right simply because they signed up for a list. I wasn't dismissing him from the conversation though. I was dismissing the idea that he knows more then multiple IP lawyers just because he signed up for a list. I assume you get the difference. I never claimed I knew more then anyone either. That's why I've cited the articles multiple time instead of just going off about my personal opinions. I'm not the one claiming I have some special knowledge about the subject just because of some ridiculous, meaningless criteria like how long I've had my account or what websites I signed up for either. You and Prosfilaes are. So maybe take a look in the mirror dude. Sorry I dismissed Prosfilaes and acted like an authority by saying IP lawyers probably know what they are talking about though lmao. I swear people on here love to get super offended over the smallest, most biennial non-issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well, like I say, I'd urge you to read and apply Commons:Civility, it really does affect where people choose to put their time, and how seriously they take you. Belbury (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And I'd urge to you read and apply Commons:Assume good faith next time instead of assuming I'm acting in a way that I'm obviously not. Like I said, this isn't a one way street. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello Adamant1, I remember having hot discussions with you on some of the English Wikipedia AfDs but your recent support in my failed RfA and your arguments in the DRs generally has changed my perception about you completely. I learn from you and look forward to learning more! I was thinking for the last few days to send a kitten here but I have been occupied in some other tasks. Thanks a lot!

─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands

Hi Adamant1, why did you change the name of this category back to the wrong English title again? All other categories of German policial parties have a German title (see Category:Political parties in Germany). There is absolutely no reason for an exception in this case. -- Chaddy (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I said why in my changeset comment when I restored Category:Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany. I'll reiterate it again here though since you apparently didn't read it. "It's perfectly fine to use translated names for categories in cases where they are commonly used, and Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany is used in Wikidata, Wikipedia, and the parties own website BTW (https://www.mlpd.de/english/program-of-the-marxist-leninist-party.pdf). There's also upwards of 600,000 hits for it on Google. So it's not like the name in English is at all uncommon." Also your claim that All other categories of German political parties have a German title is clearly nonsense since the titles of multiple categories in Category:Communist parties in Germany are in English and that's only a single category for German political parties. Either way, it would still be perfectly fine to have the title in English since the party itself calls themselves by the English title and that's how it's written with Wikidata and Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As a side to that it's extremely bad faithed and goes against the proper editing processes to start a discussion on someone's talk page about something and then revert the edits being discussed while the conversation is still going on. More so considering the clearly false accusation that the edit was vandalism. Something isn't vandalism just because you don't agree with it. I really don't appreciate the insinuation that it was either. Next time maybe at least have the scruples to wait until the person explains why they made the edit before you do the revert and attack them over it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a German party. Names normally aren't translated. Furthermore as I already said, all other German parties have their German names here (besides of these two exceptions you have found). So there is no reason to proceed differently in this case. Additionally - and this is the most important point - the German title was the original title of this category until you changed everything without any discussion (the logs don't forget: [5], [6], [7]). And now you even start an edit war (of course without using the summary line). This is not the way how a collaborative project works. So please let us stop this childish dispute. -- Chaddy (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Names normally aren't translated. Wrong. Names are translated if they are commonly used in English, which is the case here. Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany is a Common name that the party itself uses. Also, I'm not sure how the logs prove your point since an administrator had originally moved the contents of Category:Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands to Category:Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany due to the former being "incorrectly named" (his words, not mine). So even an administrator thought the German was wrong and acted accordingly. That said, I started a discussion about it since I don't really feel like being personally attacked just because I followed the guidelines. Your free to make your argument in the discussion. I'd appreciate it if you skipped the personal attacks and false accusations when you do it though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chaddy and Adamant1: I think Adamant1 is right here, in principle, but Chaddy is right that the German parties all seem to have German names for their categories, even the ones that are very commonly referred to in English by English-language names (Christian Democrats, Christian Social Union; really, the only one I've routinely seen English-language sources fail to translate to English is Alternative für Deutschland‎). So rather than change one of these, this probably calls for a CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Jmabel: Which guideline says that names of German parties have to be named with an English title? Or which other reason does apply here to force this category renaming? -- Chaddy (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chaddy: Commons:Categories#Category names: "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)." Which is actually a policy, not just a guideline. For most of these parties there is, indeed, a common English-language name. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm, okay. But the cited text also excepts so called "proper names". The names of these parties are such proper names. So I don't think that this policy can be used in this case. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at COM:HD#Allentown discussion resumed

 You are invited to join the discussion at COM:HD#Allentown discussion resumed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just notifying you as a courtesy since you were a participant in the previous discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Kurt Eigler

Hello Adamant1,

Kurt Eigler was not born in 1949, and he did not die in 1990. That should have been obvious when he designed stamps in 1952. Those years which were named in the category for his stamps referred to the years in which the GDR (East Germany) existed. I was able to find info about him online in a philately magazine, also in the Berlin marriage registry (via Ancestry), and because the signatures shown in both sources matched I can say that he lived from 1911 to 1982. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I must have been basing it on a different Kurt Eigler or something. Although as you note the dates being wrong should have been obvious from when the stamp was created. I'll try and be more careful next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Regarding the incomprehensible behavior of users, you did not communicate with the parties in advance, and you did not assume good faith. Hope you pay attention next time. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Glass works Comenius chapel

Hi Adamant, I looked through Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Comeniuskapel, Naarden. I have no time to read it all at the moment. Among others, there is no evidence the czech government owns the copyright (and even then... what is the successor of the older country) My general comments are as follows:

• The chapel is now part of a museum, so it is not a public space according to the Dutch copyright law as worded on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Freedom_of_panorama. Therefore there is no freedom of panorama in the chapel.
• If there would be FOP in the building (which I do not think there is), copyrighted works can only be published "as they are", which means including the environment of the building, so isolated details should be deleted in any case, such as File:Interieur, een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527961 - RCE.jpg.
• The glass is de minimis on some images, and can be easily cropped from some others.

Hope this helps, you may copy this to the DR page, if you think it helpfull. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle - City Hardware - 9th N & Harrison.jpg

Maybe I'm being blind, because I'm the one who initially put something in the cats related to a Tesla logo, but now I can't for the life of me see the logo. I think it may have been accidental copy-paste on may part. Do you see something there? - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Jeez, not that I can tell. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

please be more careful

Please be more careful. I think you really fell short of your responsibilities, to the WMF community, with Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_from_David_Adamec. I said so there.

I am leaving this heads up on your talk page for several reasons:

1. To make sure you see my replies to your comments;
2. Everyone is human, Even Homer nods. You deserve a fair chance to learn from your mistakes;
3. Before a contributor takes the step of reporting someone to an administrative fora, for problematic behavior, they are encouraged to check to see if the contributor in question has previously received a warning, from someone else. If someone else considers reporting you I want them to find a record, on your talk page history, that I warned you about the problems I found. Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I'm not exactly sure what "problematic behavior" your referring to, but I will remind you that making up spurious accusations about someone is a form of personal attack. So I suggest you stop doing it. Your not going to get your way in the DR by acting smug or reporting me over a none issue. Bludgeoning the discussion by repeatedly making it about fake personal grievances instead of why the images aren't copyright isn't really helpful either. I'd appreciate it if you skipped the personal screeds next time and leave it at why you think the images aren't copyrighted. Admins are perfectly capable of sorting the details out without the unhinged and extremely patronizing side rants over non-issues. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• We are all volunteers here. This means we get to pick and choose what tasks we undertake.

No one can order us to undertake a particular task - because we are volunteers.

On the other hand, other volunteers are entitled to see us perform competently the tasks we do undertake.

Asking you to perform a task you have undertaken in a competent manner is not a personal attack. Geo Swan (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No one can order us to undertake a particular task I think I have the right to ask you to stop bludgeoning the DR by making it personal. In know way is that a demand though. I just don't think making things extremely personal is a productive way to handle things. Although I will say it's a little rich that accusing me of making demands when Your the who repeatedly bossed me around about showing my work. I really don't appreciate the projection.

Asking you to perform a task you have undertaken in a competent manner is not a personal attack. Sure, that's not what you did. You repeatedly bossed me around an extremely condescending way and called my integrity into question. There's zero reason I needed to be talked down about how I went about nominating the file for deletion or have my abilities questioned in the holier than thou, smug way you went about it. Period. Although it is 100% a personal attack to make vailed threats that you are going to report someone over a none issue like you did. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if the discussion ended there. I'm good on the bad faithed obfuscation and personal attacks. Seriously, go take a walk or something. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

With regard to your comment about "intentionally lying"...

In this comment you wrote: Intentionally lying it is then

In this earlier comment you asked Asclepias Are you saying I'm lying about it?

I suggest to you it is a mistake to accuse people of lying, or accuse them of calling you a liar, when they have questions or challenges for you.

Let's be clear. You told Asclepias There's to many images and websites they were on before being uploaded to Commons for me to list all of them... In point of fact there is only one, count'em one image published prior to it being uploaded here. I don't think Asclepias is accusing you of being a liar. I am not accusing you of being a liar. I believe your initial claims were made by mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. That's what "even Homer nods" means. Your goal, my goal, SHB2000's goal should not be to never make a mistake. Our goals should be to be open to recognizing when others notice what might be a mistake, to give those challenges a fair and dispassionate examination, and, if after that fair and dispassionate examination, we realize we made a mistake, we openly acknowledge that mistake.

People who question whether you made a mistake, or who explicitly say you made a mistake, are not personally attacking you. Nor should you interpret their comments as accusations you are a liar.

I do my best to acknowledge when I realize I made a mistake. I think I do an okay job at that. I think it is completely reasonable for me to expect other people to acknowledge when they realize they made a mistake. I do not regard it as bullying to ask other people to acknowledge their mistakes, when I do my best to do it myself. Geo Swan (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. You really have no ability to just drop something after someone has asked you to do you? Seriously, at this point the whole thing is bordering on harassment. For like the fifth time, I don't care what your disingenuous, lecturing opinion is and I don't have anything else to say about it either. So get the multiple hints I've given you and dropped it already. It's not that difficult. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello, I'm Fumikas Sagisavas. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Please stop adding disruptive threads to deletion requests! Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas: I don't see any edit in that discussion that was reverted. Let alone a "disruptive thread." So you can point out exactly what your talking about. Otherwise I'm going to have to suggest you stop leaving spurious messages on people's talk pages. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas: --Adamant1 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, This is regarding this thread, but there were other similar issues before. You really need to change the way you interact with other contributors, and take into account critics by AFBorchert and others. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: I think I laid out why I started the ANU complaint pretty clearly and I don't see any actual criticism of anything I said there, and no Andy Dingley personal attack that I'm a net negative to the project doesn't qualify. So can you be more specific? Otherwise, it's kind of hard change the way I interact with people when the feedback about how I'm acting is just vague handwaving about personal grievances by people who are clearly just axe grinding. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Postal stamp related deletion requests

It seems you have started nominating files related to Latvian stamps for deletion. I assume you will do the same for some other countries. Could you please add these requests to suitable categories, similar to Category:Latvian FOP cases/pending‎, as there may be a need to review these deletions if we get further information (or use them as a reference regarding later uploaded files). I would suggest specific categories, but I am not familiar with the relevant category tree. –LPfi (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: Sure. I've actually been nominating images of stamps for deletion for a while now and it never came up. So I'm not really sure what categories exists for then or if there even are any, but I'll look into it when I have the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Latvia, but what about the German stamps that have been marked as not being PD since at least 2012. If you want to consider doing something significant concerning stamps then possibly consider those found in Category:German stamps review and Category:Deutsche Bundespost stamps but also read Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. In all I now see close to 9,000 stamps that might get deleted, down from about 10,000 some years ago. There may well be more in Category:Area stamps of Germany. However care needs to be taken as some licences may not be accurate as stated. There are also a few discussions on this topic to be found elsewhere. Ww2censor (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I also found this m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps and its talk page m:Talk:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps which seem relevant. Ww2censor (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been slowly going through them. Unfortunately you can't just nominate something for deletion based purely on the URAA and I don't want to anyway because it's super convoluted and there's only administrator who seems to know it works. So I kind of got burned out on the whole thing. I'll probably get back to it eventually though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: Am I remember wrong or did you create categories for deletion requests having to do with stamps of Finland when the guideline was changed? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I did. I might have tried but not found how to get them neatly into the category hierarchy. I don't find any suitable close parent categories. –LPfi (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Western Publishing & Novelty Co. 836. (88456) – The Mary Pickford Douglas Fairbanks Residence, Beverly Hills, California. front.tif

Copyright status: File:Western Publishing & Novelty Co. 836. (88456) – The Mary Pickford Douglas Fairbanks Residence, Beverly Hills, California. front.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Western Publishing & Novelty Co. 836. (88456) – The Mary Pickford Douglas Fairbanks Residence, Beverly Hills, California. front.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Western Publishing & Novelty Co. 836. (88456) – The Mary Pickford Douglas Fairbanks Residence, Beverly Hills, California. back.tif

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 15:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Logos_of_companies_by_name

Logos of companies by name has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleting categories

Why don't you move the categories instead of creating new categories and deleting the previous name? The page history is lost that way, not that it's the end of the world but principially you should use the move function. Jonteemil (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I assume your comment was for me. If so, I don't think I've deleted any categories related to deletion discussions. So can you be more specific about what exactly your referring to? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: It seems you created Cat:Foo and tagged Cat:Bar for deletion instead of moving Cat:Foo to Cat:Bar which would have been the correct procedure. FYI Cat:Foo/bar were general examples. Jonteemil (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I don't remember doing that. Let alone as it would have related to categories for deletion requests. It's fine to use general examples, but I can't really help you or do something differently if I don't even what your talking about to begin with. There aren't "correct procedure" for deleting categories anyway. Moving categories instead of just deleting them isn't a requirement. Not that I don't personally mind doing it, but usually the categories I nominate for deletion either have a very small or non-exiting history to begin with and I'm not going to bother moving a category that only has a single edit. Sorry. As a side to that I'd appreciate it if you started a new discussion thread next time instead of turning an old discussion into a side conversation about something that (apparently) has nothing to do with it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion was from May, sorry for reusing that. I can't show anymore than general since the categories in question have been deleted. I would say that there is a correct procedure and that's the move procedure, no matter how many or few edits the incorrectly named category has, but that's my personal opinion. Jonteemil (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. If moving categories instead of deleting them was the "correct" procedure there wouldn't be things like Template:Bad name. We will have to agree to disagree though. I'm fine moving a category that actually has an edit history, but I don't think there's a need to in cases where they were just created and/or only have a few edits. I can't really have an opinion about it beyond that without actual examples though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In your deletion you are delete necessary categorization. One that want see all Italy stamps of one year, for, example, couldn't do it now.

אוריאל כ (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Your going to have to be more specific. Which year categories did I delete that are necessary? I still create "postage stamps of X year" categories for years that aren't copyrighted or there's another reason to create them. So I'm not really sure what your talking about. It's useless and unnecessary to "stamps of X year" categories instances where there's only image or stamps of that year and decade are copyrighted though. Like you created a bunch of categories for years with only one image and where we don't even have any other stamps for that decade. Which is totally useless. If you provide specific examples I'm fine with creating year categories if they would actually be useful though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Adamant1. Reason: Hostile behaviour in discussion surrounding Dutch FoP.

Way to be retaliatory. Really non-antagonistic way to handle things to. A simple message on my talk asking me to tone it down next time or something would have been more then sufficient. Sorry I didn't immediately march to what the "expert" said though. My bad for thinking this was a collaborative project and that my opinion about it would at all matter. Really. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your requests for deletion of old images of algeria railway stations

Hi,

All these images were found on the internet and the names of their authors are unknown. So we don't know if they are dead for more than 70 years (before 1953). However these old images show Algerian railway stations and in Algeria there is a particularity regarding photos published before 1987. This exception is described by the template Template:PD-Algeria-photo-except. It's obvious that these photos of those railway stations have taken before 1987. So we could replace "PD-old" by "PD-Algeria-photo-except". In addition, many of those railway stations don't exist any more. Railway lines have been dismantled. (see fr:Histoire des chemins de fer algériens) Poudou99 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Poudou99: I assume they would still need a source and date beyond just the internet and sometime in the 20th century regardless though. Otherwise no one can confirm they are PD. And I'm not saying they aren't, but files still need basic information or they can be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

But what kind of information I can give in such cases:

• https://www.ebay.fr/itm/172477304057
• https://www.geneanet.org/cartes-postales/view/5959660#0

None give the real source. The first one is a scan of a PD (I suppose) ; the second is a copy of a copy of... a scan (1920 is indicated but I doubt it's the real year).

In the Ebay page you can see there are other postcards of the station tagged "CPA" (PD Old in french). The second site is a genealogy site where members share pictures of various cities. The URL contains "cartes-postales" (Postcards)

Many of PD I have uploaded come from such sites ou personal blogs. I can't remember their URL.

Many of the old French stations PDs present in Commons are tagged as "personal collection" in the "source" field. Should we believe this? Honestly I prefer to write "Internet" because it is often the reality for many postcards uploaded in Commons.

--Poudou99 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Either source would be fine if either one is where the images we are talking about came from. At least the second one has a date. Although who's to know how accurate that is, but the important thing is that there's "a source." That said, it should be the source where the image actually came from. Not one you found after the fact with a different format for the image, which looks like is the case for the second one unless the image we have a crop of that image. Postcards are kind of a unique item because the source can be "scan of postcard", but you still provide a link to where got the image in those cases. "Personal collection" is fine if it's obvious the uploader scanned it themselves. Although it would be better to say "scan of postcard from private collection" with a link to the uploaders user page. If you look through my uploaders I have some postcards I scanned and that's how I do it. Although again, you shouldn't just do that if it's not obvious the image is scanned by the uploader. Really, the uploader should change or add the source since they are the one who uploaded the image and therefore know where it came from. You can put whatever you want for the source, but you have no way of known if it's correct. They do and we should be able to ask them if something turns out to be wrong about the file information. There's no reason I would ask you about the image if I have a question about it just because you fiddled with a field so it wouldn't get deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. I will try to retrieve all internet pages where I have found these images and then I will provide the URL.

Which file I would have changed something so that the file would not be deleted since you have started the DR?

As far as dates and places are concerned, I have a good knowledge of the subject technically and historically. I am a major contributor to WP-fr in the railway field and concerning the Algerian railway network, I know its history well and I am able to say if an image has a correct date or not or if the location is correct. --Poudou99 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. With the DR's just vote keep with a link to a source that has the image and provide a rough estimate of when you think it was published. With the date it's fine to just give the decade by putting circa 1940s or whatever in the date field. It should be accurate to least a 10 year period though. A range of 100 years for the possible publication date isn't really helpful. Although if you say "circa" and it ends up being off by a few years or decade that's fine because your making it clear the date is an estimate to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Would that be suitable?

• File:Gare de Moghrar - CPA1.jpg
• File:Gare de Moghrar-Foukani - CPA2.jpg
• File:Gare de Moghrar-Foukani - CPA3.jpg
• File:Gare de Mécheria - CPA1.jpg
• File:Gare de Mécheria - CPA2.jpg

--Poudou99 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, those look fine. The first file should probably be "circa 1903" since the date was written on the card by the sender. But it doesn't matter that much. Really, there should be a special template just for mailed items like postcards that allows for multiple dates depending on the medium. Otherwise it's just inconsistent since some people will use postmark date, publication year, or what the sender writes on the card depending on personal preference and there's no way to tell which one they are using based on the description. Plus some people care more about the postmark date then year of publication and visa versa. So it would be good if they were separate fields regardless, but That's an issue for another time though. Thanks for updating the descriptions though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Massive nominations

Hi @Adamant1,

I trust this message finds you well. I wanted to bring up a matter regarding the recent mass deletions nominations on my account. I noticed these deletions occurred without any prior communication or notation on my talk page, which has led me to perceive them as somewhat arbitrary.

As you may know, Algeria was colonized (1830-1962), and most images were taken either with Algerian or colonial settlers. I have uploaded some images of that period, which are from Facebook groups, old online forums, etc. Simply stating that they are from the internet is enough for me, especially since many of these old postcards are found on eBay. I obviously will not include a commercial link as a source.

The images featuring train stations date back to the colonial period, particularly the 19th and early 20th centuries. Most of those colonial documents and images are now in the public domain through resources such as BnF Gallica. For illustration, there's a comprehensive collection of 280 photographs available, or here in the top right corner, there is an image of Gare de Bone (Bone train station) published in BnF.

Additionally, since Algeria's attainment of independence, France has not issued any licenses pertaining to images captured during its colonization of Algeria, a status that persists even after 61 years. The period following Algeria's independence has been characterized by a well-defined public domain policy: works published before 1973 fall into the public domain, a trend that continues for works predating 1987.

You have nominated files that fall under PD-Algeria-photo-except and PD-Algeria, all works prior to 1987 are in the public domain, regardless of the 70 years PD-old or not. The same applies to the 6 Algerians who were killed in 1953, their images were taken before 1953 by their Algerian families, who shared these images on social media. It's quite difficult, if not impossible, to have specific information like EXIF data and exact dates for these shared amateur images, and the same applies to the other images that you nominated, which were found on Facebook groups and are published prior to 1987. I will not include a Facebook link in the source section.

Therefore, I still hold the belief that your nominations may have been arbitrary selected. It would have been greatly appreciated if a note or question had been left on my talk page for communication. I kindly urge you to reconsider these nominations since requesting undeletion is a time-consuming process, regardless of the effort I've invested in finding and enhancing those images. and I have even taken the initiative to self-nominate files when I discovered potential copyright concerns. However, in this case, I assure you these files are entirely non-copyrighted.

Best regards,

Riad Salih (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: A few things 1. I didn't "delete" any of your images. I either nominated them for deletion or put a request on the page for the files asking for you to provide a source for the images. Nothing was deleted though and all you have to do so they aren't is add the information that's been requested. 2. "The internet" isn't a source. What would be is a link to where you downloaded the images from. Even if said images are PD, we still need to know where they came from and at least a rough estimate of their publication date beyond "the 20th century" since their copyright status has to be confirmable and that can only be done if we have the information to do it with. Anyone can upload an image and say it came from the internet and was published within the last 100 years. It's fine if your not willing to add a link to the Facebook group where you got the images from, but there's no reason you can't find websites that have the same image and add that as a source instead. Although it's not optimal, at least it's something. In some cases it would also have the benefit of helping us find rough information about when the image was published and who it was taken by. For instance Poudou99 found a website with one of the images that says it was published in 1920.

That said, it's still preferable to have the actually place you got the image from as the source. Otherwise it seems like your just trying to hide information or get around the guidelines. I can understand not wanting to link to a Facebook group, but there's no reason you can't provide the actual source in other cases. For instance with the images that you say come from the people's family members. It's fine to put "family member" as the source it's that all you know. It's at least better then "internet." And you can say they are non-copyrighted, but it doesn't really what you say if you got them from random places including family members and don't know or aren't willing to provide us with the information about when they were taken and who took them. But like I told Poudou99 it's fine if that's "scan of a postcard from private Facebook group" and "circa 1920" or whatever. I often put "scan of postcard from private collection" with a link to my user page for the source when I upload images that I've scanned and the decade I think the postcard was published in. No one cares just as long as it's true. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1

Some pictures have been deleted, and I have started the process of requesting their restoration. In the date section, if you take a quick look at my contributions, you'll see that almost every day I rename, check dates, licenses, etc., for old train station images in order to fix the dates. I often put the 20th century as an approximate date since the dates mentioned on old postcards mostly indicate when the card was sent, not when the picture was taken. Therefore, I have to try to find an approximate date. Sometimes there are images taken in 1910, but the postcard was sent in 1950, so it takes some time to determine the correct date. I believe you agree with me on this.

Regarding the sources, most of them are from eBay or other platforms; as said I cannot include commercial links. I assume you agree with that. As for the Facebook groups, I want to assure you that I do check for copyrighted content before uploading any pictures. I use tools like TinEye and Google Reverse Image Search to verify their origin. I am aware of the importance of not randomly picking pictures from Facebook and posting them without proper authorization. However, we need to consider the context that all works prior to 1987 are in the public domain. For example, when I come across a picture like this one: File:Djaffar Bensetti en train de jouer de la trompette (cropped).jpg, which was published on his own profile before his death. In the image, he appears to be quite young, in his room in Oran (Algeria), which clearly indicates that it was taken before 1987. Taking into consideration his biography, a quick calculation: born in 1962 + 25 (which is the maximum) = 1987, which falls within the scope of 1987 PD. Therefore, before adding such pictures, I conduct my own research.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The same thing applies to this File:Journal algérien La Voix du Peuple, numéro du 11-03-1959.jpg. The source is clearly mentioned in French. It was published in 1959, prior to 1973 and 1987. As I mentioned before, these factors need to be taken into consideration. Riad Salih (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The same applies to File:Khedidja Chellali.jpg. She was killed in 1959, prior to 1973 and 1987. This is also the case for all 21 of your nominations, which can be quite time-consuming. A note could have saved a significant amount of time. Therefore, I kindly request that you take a second look at the files. Riad Salih (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

At least from what I can tell none of the images I nominated for deletion or added the "source tag" to have been deleted except for an image from 1977, which was clearly copyrighted. So that's not on me. As to the date, it's fine to put the date postcard was sent as long as you include "circa" along with the date so it's clear the send date is just an estimate. Although it should be confirmable somehow. If the image was taken in 1910, but the postcard was sent in 1950 then off course you should go with 1910. I don't really see what the issue with adding the date of publication is there if you know what it is though. That said, we don't have exact publication dates for most or all postcards to begin with. The important thing is to give a rough estimate of the date based on the information we have available to us. Know one expects to be exact. It should just be more precise then "sometime in the last 300 years." Like I told Poudou99 it's fine to be off by a few years or decade as long as your upfront from the start that it's just an estimate to begin with. That's still better then saying it was published sometime in the 20th century.

As to the rest of your comment, there's no reason you can't provide commercial links if that's where you got the image from. Plenty of people (including myself) link to eBay listings. There's actually a special template for doing so and no one cares. So I'm not really sure what your on about with the whole thing that we can't link to commercial websites. That's not an issue. With your example of the "quick calculation", I wouldn't personally do it that way because there's no reliable way to tell what age someone was when they were photographed. But in that case it's fine to give the date as "circa 1960s" or whatever decade you think the image was taken in. No one expects a precise to the day date. It's just not helpful or informative to say the image was taken sometime between 1900 and 1999. I don't know why you wouldn't just add an estimate of the date if you know what it is anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1

I agree with you regarding the dates. As mentioned earlier, I go through train station categories almost every day, fixing dates, licenses, and other details. I have a collection of images that I upload first and then fix the dates later to save time. In such cases, I always provide an approximate date. Here is an example: File:Train - Gare de Blida.jpg.

Regarding eBay and similar platforms, on Wikipedia, it is not allowed to include commercial links. The same principle applies to the Wikimedia Foundation, where we should not use it as a platform for promotion. I cannot provide a link for purchasing the card, especially since it will no longer be available after the sale. The image in question is a postal card that is shared on the internet, and for me, mentioning these details is sufficient. When I mention eBay or any other platform, it is simply to indicate that the image is sourced from the internet.

For the question of estimation, there is an article on Wikipedia, we can read the biography and find events from the person's career. By analyzing those events, we can clearly estimate the date and determine that it is prior to 1987. I am aware of the copyright status, so I conduct research based on real events that can be verified. It is the same a mentioning "circa X" based on estimations, taking into consideration the historical context.

As for the 1977 image that was deleted, it is not copyrighted, as I previously mentioned. It falls within the period prior to 1987.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Images from eBay has a around 6,000 images from eBay, most (if not all) of which contain a link to eBay as the source. Flickr is a commercial website also but it's the source for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of images. This isn't Wikipedia. No one cares if we link to commercial websites if that's where the image comes from. Although like I said, it's perfectly fine to say the source is a scan of a postcard, but if you have a link to where you got it then you should just provide it regardless. "The internet" is to vague and the fact that you aren't willing to provide more information then that just looks suspicious. To quote Commons:Licensing, which as far as I know is a policy, "The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided." So there's no excuse to not to provide the source if you have one. As to the dates, I've already made it clear that it's fine to give a rough estimate of the publication date if you have one. I don't really care about how much research you do or whatever. Just provide the decade the photograph was taken if that's all you know. Again, no one cares, but "sometime between 1900 and 1999" doesn't cut it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1

I understand and agree with your points. Regarding the dates, as I mentioned before, I explained the process of uploading pictures first and fixing the dates later in most cases I do it within a week. I apologize if there was any confusion.

Regarding eBay, it is not mandatory to mention it in every case. The existence of a category does not oblige us to mention eBay as a source. eBay is a marketplace where duplicate copies of postal cards are sold, rather than being the original source of the work. However, the internet is a clear source for finding those old postal cards. Different contributors may have their own perspectives on commercial websites, as there is no clear rule on this matter.

If you had noticed this, it would have been helpful if you had left me a note on my talk page. You could have said something like, "Hi, I discovered some images on your account, but it's unclear if the dates and sources are properly mentioned. Could you take a quick look into it, or should we proceed with a deletion process?" That's all. You initiated a large-scale deletion of PD Algeria without fully understanding the license, And it would have saved us a significant amount of time and energy. Therefore, I kindly request you to reconsider your nomination. My available free time is limited, and I cannot go through each nomination and copy-paste the same message repeatedly. Thank you for understanding.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

it's mandatory to mention eBay in every case where you got the image from there. I'm not sure what your talking about with categories since we don't require sources for them like we do images and anyone can create a category for whatever reason they want to. So categories have nothing to do with it. Regardless, eBay is the source if that's where you downloaded the image from. So if you go the image from eBay then you should use it as the source. Period. End of story. I'm sick of repeating myself about it and yes there is a clear rule about it. The one I just cited that says "please include a web link or a complete citation if possible." What that rule doesn't say if that you can just leave out the link or citation if you don't feel like adding one. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous that your arguing about in the first place. There's no reason someone wouldn't just provide the source unless they are trying to hide something. And sure I could have left you a message on your talk page, but the issue wasn't it was unclear if the dates and sources were properly mentioned. They just weren't mentioned to begin with and it's not on me that you left the information out. If you don't want people nominating your images for deletion then don't leave important parts of the description fields empty. If you have time to research and upload the images then you clearly have enough to copy a link to eBay. Otherwise just don't upload the images. Heck, it's taken more time for to argue about it on my talk page then it did for Poudou99 to just add the information. So you'll have to forgive me for not caring about how busy you supposedly are. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1

Please respect basic rules of etiquette. I have already stated that I agree with your points, so there is no need to repeat yourself. It is presumptuous to assume that a note on my page wouldn't change anything. The fact that I am engaging in this conversation with you clearly shows that I am aware of the context. You have nominated 21 images, and I have explained that all of your nominations does not align with PD Algeria. Therefore, please refrain from using phrases like "period, end of the story" no need for this aggressive tone.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Etiquette isn't a one way street and your thee who is continuing to say the nominations are arbitrary even after I explained why I did them. I have zero problem repeating myself if seems like someone either doesn't understand or just won't get the point. And I never said leaving a message on your talk page wouldn't have changed anything, just that I'm not obligated to leave one. The "source-needed" template allows for the person to add a source within a week before the image is deleted. There's no reason you couldn't have just done that since you know where you got the images from instead of making a row out of it. Really, there was no reason to have a conversation about it to begin with. Adding PD Algeria to a file isn't a free pass to not add the source or date of publication. Nor does it mean someone can't nominate your images for deletion if you aren't willing to add said information. Now I'd appreciate if the conversation was over. I've said all I need to. Just add the details and there won't be a problem next time. Otherwise that's on you for needlessly overcomplicating things by refusing to add the source and publication date even you know both of them. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1

I started with 'Hi' and ended with 'Regards.' I never used words like 'period' or 'end of the story,' and I used words like 'please' and 'kindly,' so it's not a one-way street. I have said multiple times that I agree with your point, but you keep repeating and saying I didn't get the point. I have mentioned that a note would be appreciated next time, not that you were obliged to do so.

Regarding eBay, I explained why I didn't add it, and I'm not opposed, just explaining my vision. No one said PD-Algeria is a free pass; I'm aware of that and trying to work on it. I explained the reasons for getting EXIF data or the exact date from amateur shared pictures, and it could have ended there.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because someone says "regards" at the end of a comment doesn't what they say in between that can't be rude. Regardless, sure you get the point now (and I don't even think you do) but you clearly didn't 6 messages into the conversation when you were still insisting there was no rule people add a source even after I quoted one to you. I'm sure you get the difference. I don't care what your vision is. I care what the guidelines say and they are clear that the uploader should add a source if they have one. Otherwise other people are more then within their bounds to nominate your uploads for deletion. It could have ended at you saying you'd add the source next time instead of repeatedly insisting it's not necessary to provide one. Now I'd appreciate it if the conversation was over like I requested. Again, two way street. If you don't drop it then I'll repeat myself until you do. Otherwise, stop leaving messages on my talk page. This has gone on long enough. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Postcards

Good stuff: User:Adamant1/Postcard publishers, I hope you keep expanding it. RAN (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. I'll have to expand on it at some point. I'd like to start adding stamp boxes once I get all the publishers added to the new table. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Daily Express

Hello! I'm the author of this upload. Can you, please, review it and keep it, since I has updated the license? --Yeeeep nooope (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yeeeep nooope: I'll have a look at when I have the time. I am interested to know what point in PD-UK-unknown since its not a photograph, art, or a literary work. Its probably hard to tell exactly what it is with something like this that is essentially mixed media, but I assume the work would have to be at least one of those for PD-UK-unknown to be appropriate. Although if it isn't who knows what would be. License templates could really be clearer as to what exactly they can be used on or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

? Decision deletion RCE images ?

Dear Adamant1,

There has been a misunderstanding, see

• Commons:Deletion_requests/Photos_interiors_Noorderhaven_5_and_7,_Groningen,_for_RCE-2023-09
• at the end.

It seems you missed important information regarding the requested courtesy deletion, which we normally in fact did allow. It occurred rarely.

• Could you please read the NEW INFORMATION there halfway on the page and reconsider?

It is not about pressure by an owner, but about correcting an error made by the image donor RCE breaking a promise. Courtesy deletion is reasonable and important for the credibility of Wikimedia in the Netherlands.

Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand it's about correcting an error. The problem is that's not an error that can be corrected. Nor should it be regardless. Sorry. See my comment in the DR for why. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"over 1 million images in their holdings"

Well yes, it's a rather large state archive, or more precisely an umbrella institution with a common web site for 6 regional state archives (for a state with a population bigger than that of Georgia and with a history going back much longer, which means more holdings). A good chunk of their images will look like this: digital files created from microform copies of their old paper files, 1 page per image file (or sometimes 2). But even the Pragher collection alone has over 360 000 photographs, and they have other collections like this one. Accd. to [8], they have 24.6 million digital image files online at the moment. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hi there. In the future, if a category is completely empty, can you please tag it SD|C2 instead of SD|C1? That way I can just click the delete button and it'll show the right rationale in the deletion log. Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. We don't usually create categories for individual stamps based on their catalog number. So I thought C1 would work since they are clearly improperly named, but I'm fine with using C2 instead if it doesn't work for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion Briefmarkexxx

If there is really a copyright problem with the original creators, then I can't help it. Can such files be kept in some secure backup, not publicly visible, so that they could be restored eventually? --PeterFrankfurt (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Files aren't technically deleted. Just hidden from public view until they are out of copyright and they should be restored whenever that is. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edits on ANU

Hi, You should take AFBorchert's warning seriously, and stop arguing there. Yann (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a warning. He's just dragging me through the dirt for no reason when I've been more then reasonable about the whole thing. I said what I'm doing has already been discussed and follows the guidelines. I don't know what else you guys want. There's literally nothing people like him or A.Savin will accept outside of 100% agreement with whatever they say and that's not what I'm here for. Sorry. Same goes for spending multiple months editing something because the guidelines say categories names shouldn't be ambiguous and there was already a discussion about it just so the edits can be reverted by people who could really care less about either one. It's not like I'm not open to alternative ways to better organize the images, but I don't see anyone posing any. Just insulting me and trying to stop my efforts to make things easier to organize. I'm sure I couldn't ask anyone in that discussion what there alternative is without them claiming I'm being arguementive or some nonsense along those lines either. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Better means for Wikidata Infobox

Hi. Adding {{Wikidata Infobox}} is great, though less useful when you add the q= parameter at this end. Most useful to add the category to the item list as per 'Ferdynand Śliwa' (Q98271245) in the "Multilingual sites" section.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I didn't know it mattered. So I'll try to do that way instead going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The reason it matters is that if you add it on Wikidata it then becomes an interwiki link, so all Wikipedias (etc.) with that link get a link to Commons & vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk

Thank you for defending me

Thank you for defending me against users assuming bad faith. Historical revisionism is such a huge problem. I'm in hot water on Latvian Wikipedia for removing a link to a neo-Nazi blogspot that fawns over Herbert Cukurs, this historical revisionism is becoming insane.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not a fan of all the historical revisionism going on lately either and I know its impossible these days to say or do anything even slightly critical of Ukraine or Ukranians without being treated like a pariah. So it is what it is. Don't be supprised if you get targeted or blocked from other projects. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No kidding, the historical revisionism these days is insane. I recently got in trouble on Latvian Wikipedia for trying to remove a link to a self-published blogspot fawning over Herbert Cukurs (the Butcher of Riga) from his Latvian language article. Same editor who protected the page to presevedthe blogspot link is also insisting that calling the Latvian Legion (part of the Waffen SS) "Nazi" equal to calling the Red Army "Nazi" (cheif opponent of the SS). They somehow managed to out-stupid the clown who wrote that Kazakh oral tradition is "propaganda" that does cultural appropriation of Kazakh culture!--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think this is cause for admin intervention?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Remembrance_Day_of_the_Latvian_Legionnaires User who insisted on keeping a pro-Cukurs blogspot in the Cukurs article keeps using the word "alleged" and insisting that the Latvian Legion and Cukurs himself are not Nazis. Cherry on top is blaming Kazakhs for the Hamas rockets (they somehow managed to top the retard who wrote that Kazakh oral tradition is propaganda of cultural appropriation of Kazakh culture). I think this is ban-worthy but I'm afraid of filing the complain alone lest they fight dirty and start attacking Kazakhstan with more load of retarded anti-Kazakh propaganda.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The author traditionally lies - the Kazakh people were not mentioned at all in my sharp part of answer. Muslims could be offended from it, yes.

And the problem is not some kind of anti-Kazakh propaganda (this is the first time I’ve heard of the existence of such), but in one user who is constantly being rude and lieble on various Wikipedias and imagining hostile conspiracies around him. -- Egīls Belševics (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Shall I quote you? "my wife and son are sitting in Ashdod under your Muslim missiles. Moreover, your country is openly in alliance with Russia". (bold for emphasis) How stupid do you have to be to thin those rockets are "our" missiles? It is not a conspiracy theory that Herberts Cukurs was a Nazi war criminal, it is not a conspiracy theory that the Waffen SS was Nazi, it is not a conspiracy theory that blogspot is a self-published source, it is not a conspiracy theory that Kazakhstan Ukraine Belarus Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Latvia have no Freedom of Panorama. Egilus is a Nazi apologist in case it isn't obvious from his passionate defense of Herberts Cukurs and the Waffen SS. And an Islamophobe for thinking that every single rocket from Gaza is property of the whole umma including ones with good relations with Israel.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I am now banned on English Wikipedia for 3 days for "attacking" and "harassing" him and supposedly not notifying him of the discussion (that I pinged him in). I did not make up the term "butcher of Riga"! I didn't fire rockets at anyone I'm not even Palestinian! Kazakhstan isn't Russia! Kazakhstan is a secular country! I hate to meatpuppet but can you please tell him that Kazakhstan is not a party to the war in Gaza and doesn't make the rockets?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see nothing here to do with Commons. Please don't import conflicts from other wikis into Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Said user that accused me of the rockets also insults my FoP deletion nominations.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

About deletions

Just don't go for soccer stadiums. Situation can get very complicated. Just a suggestion, remembering what happened last time :) Sailko (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. Just an FYI, but I've always thought it was weird that sports stadiums could be copyrighted since their usually pretty generic. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Creator templates

If you make a creator template (e.g., Creator:Clarence E. Bisbee), be sure to add it to files so it doesn't go unused. DS (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I usually do but I must have forgotten in that case. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

About deletions

Hello. Honestly, I do not understand why you are eliminating so many pictures from Commons. I understand that theoretically there is FoP, but really nobody has cared for years if not decades. Are you having fun depriving contributors of their work, and Wikipedia users from richer information? I have also noticed you encountered strong backlash from other users, you should at least stop and discuss more thoroughly, as some of your actions about what to delete or not are also very questionable. @Sailko 93.70.13.59 09:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sailko: Actually a lot of the images are pretty recent. Like from Wiki Loves Monuments 2023. Regardless, that's on whomever decided to upload images that don't follow the guidelines to begin with. Especially when it comes to the various Wiki Loves Monuments projects. I also reject the idea that we should allow images that clearly violate copyright to be hosted on Commons just because they have been here for a while or that the "backlash" (as you call it) should stop us from dealing with such images. It would of course make the website unmaintainable if were to acquiesced when it comes to allowing for copyrighted images every time a person (or group of people) threw a childish tantrum because a couple of images they uploaded were deletion. And it's not like I'm the cause of the files being deleted anyway. Sure, I've been nominating images for deletion that I think violate copyright, but it's not like the aforementioned tantrum throwers can't just say why the images aren't copyright violations. Or at least take it up with the closing administrator/do an un-deletion request if they don't feel like putting in that extremely small amount of effort at the beginning because they are to busy throwing around insults or whatever. I'm totally fine withdrawing any DR I open if someone makes a reasonable argument for why it's wrong. Anyway, the long-term solution to this would be for the people involved to follow the guidelines, not have such un-realistic expectations about what the purposes of Commons is, and to police themselves when it comes to dealing with copyright violations. Instead of treating this like a glorified pirating website while harassing anyone who even slightly disagrees. Then there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not going to allow for a small minority of people to bully me or anyone else into not dealing with it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Adamant, I did not leave you this message, the anonymous user just tagged me. Btw, WLM images received a specific authorization via OTRS, so we should not trouble about them, any possible compalaint will be legally covered by who released the authorization--Sailko (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I thought your name was included because you left the message while logged out and then signed it after the fact. I'm not really sure which images or authorizations your referring to, but there's plenty of examples where people have uploaded images without having authorizations and when they clearly violated copyright as part of a Wiki Loves Monuments event. Really, it's a rather regularly occurrence. So what I said about how they don't do a good job policing themselves is still valid regardless. Although it also applies to users from the same countries dealing with copyright violations when the image is of something related to said country. I'll spare you the rant about it though since your apparently not the IP editor who originally left the message ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

re:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli

Hi, how is that relevant? Did anyone made reference do the agreement between WMI and the Government in that dr? Jaqen (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jaqen: You said "keep per authorization." I assume by "authorization" you where talking about the agreement between WLMI and the government of Italy since there isn't any other authorization from what I can tell and that's what everyone in DR was talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact Marta Arosio did link an authorization in that dr. I thought it was clear enough I was referring to that one since no other authorization was referred in that dr, but I have added a link to avoid confusion. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify! Bye! Jaqen (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Villa Nemazee a Tehran, di Gio Ponti (1).jpg

Hi

When you say there's FOP in Iran and the architect of this building, Gio Ponti, died in 1979. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2050, what do you mean?

If you mean the picture is copyrighted for 50 years after death, the copyright finishes in 2029. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be right. I thought the term in Iran was 70 years for some reason. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vegetatives Wachsen (Klaus-Jürgen Luckey)

I'm seriously curious about your real issue with this. I can't believe, that you are (with the help of my video) not able to see that the images were undoubtedly taken from the footpath. My video clearly settles that case. Why do you still doubt that? Is it because you're not trusting Minderbinder, as you said in your last comment in the first section of the discussion? Greetings Dirtsc (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dirtsc: I 100% think it shows your photographs were taken from the path. It just doesn't show the statue from the path at the same angle or place as where it looks like Minderbinder took theirs from. It would be like taking an image of the statue from up the road across the street and then treating me like that shows anything. Although Minderbinder has certainly made some dishonest comments in the meantime, which hasn't really helped their argument. That's not what I'm judging it on though. Why do you care anyway? You and Minderbinder act like this whole thing is tantamount to cultural genocide or something. I think both of you are putting to much weight into deletion requests or even my opinion. At the end of the day no one cares. I sure don't. It's simply a way to figure out better where the line is. The only reason it's turned into an issue is because the both of you made it into one. As well as the admin who decided to close the DRs early against policy. Otherwise I'm sure the whole thing would have been pretty uncontroversial. So again, why do you care about it so much? I really don't see why you would at this point since I've said I think your images are legitimate. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Re:

No, it's not per that image (which I have not uploaded but barely moved from it.wikipedia, not sure why the deletion discussion was notified to me and not to the original uploader). My idea comes from what I have seen on en.wikipedia and has not changed looking at your tenure on Commons, and it is exactly what I have written in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 108#Repeated insults and bludgeoning by User:Friniate, i.e. you see Wikis just like a place to play and win "Deletion discussions: The Game", often making discussions a nasty battlefield where everyone with opposing views should be bludgeoned to the death. The fact that you basically abandoned en.Wikipedia for a mere AfD ban instead of doing the thousand other useful things you could have done there, and immediately came here to start an identical behaviour at IfDs, I consider this significant and telling more than a thousand words. Cavarrone (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

you see Wikis just like a place to play and win "Deletion discussions: The Game", often making discussions a nasty battlefield where everyone with opposing views should be bludgeoned to the death. @Cavarrone: I think your cherry picking. There's plenty of other DRs where that doesn't happen and the ones where it does aren't by any means one sided. Where's the same attitude towards people like Friniate? You could apparently care less about them bludgeoning discussions to death or making it into a a nasty battlefield by insulting me repeatedly. So spare me the sanctimony about it. You clearly don't care about this outside of axe grinding because I nominated one of your images for deletion.

But I'd love to know how exactly you think taking it to another project isn't doing just that anyway. You don't want it to be a nasty battlefield, but then your willing to turn it into one by bringing the whole thing up on another project just to kill an appeal. Get real dude. I'm the one who moved on, your still making an issue out of it, yet somehow I'm the one bludgeoning things to the death and being nasty. Right. Your clearly just an axe grinding opportunist who could care less about civility or anything else except yourself. Otherwise you would have just dropped it after the ANU complaint about Friniate was archived like I did. Your the one continuing it by bringing it up on other projects and my talk page though. Seriously, how to do you think your behavior is at all contributing to things being less nasty or like a battlefield? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Last reply, then I'll also defollow this page, otherwise we would both continue to waste time for no reason for a couple days.

1) if you are still convinced I have an axe over a specific picture or wikipedia article, so be it, but you are completely off the mark, it is your general attitude (noted years ago) that I consider unsuitable for the encyclopaedia. Believe it or not, it is your obsession with deletion procedures, and your behaviour in them, that simply baffle me and give me the idea that you are only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, and "playing" IfDs/AfDs like they were videogames. I could be wrong, but from what I have seen I have found zero evidence to the contrary. So, I commented the AN discussion not because of an axe, but just because I frankly think you would not do anything positive in AfDs, or if you prefer the negative (bad noms, bludgeoning, polemics) would greatly outweigh the positive.

2) I'm not sure what you were expecting from me, to lie or self-censor me while noting that you were telling fairy tales about being changed or about not "planning on editing in the area much to begin with" (when your stay on Commons shows that it is the one and only area you are interested in)? If my comment in the AN discussion was so meritless, in bad faith and not truthful you would had replied there and not here, explaining where and why I was wrong, or saying that I was lying because I had an axe. You are so angry just because I exposed something true and you had no strong counter-arguments to provide in the AN discussion. The real problem is that you had something to hide, not that I provided a link in the discussion. If you were really changed you yourself would had emphasised your Commons good behaviour in the request. Cavarrone (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cavarrone: If you genuinely thought my behavior was that much of a problem you would have just tried to get me topic banned on here instead of opertunistically taking to another project. Your clearly being disingenuous though. Your claim that I have an "obsession" with deletion procedures is a perfect example of that. Only a small amount of what I do here involves DRs and I wasn't doing the appeal on Wikipedia to participate in deletion requests. I also can't redirect articles, tag them with most maintenance templates, or do any kind of article clean up that might make it look like I was trying to delete the article. So the topic ban gets in the way of me doing actual, genuine editing.

I could really give a crap about AFDs. I just want to be able edit an article without having to worry that I might delete one to many words or something to violate the topic ban. That was it and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But hey I made a few mistakes a couple of years ago though. So fuck it. I guess I don't deserve to edit Wikipedia in any meaningful way from now because of it. That's the problem with people that have your narrow, bias attitude. You clearly don't care that my ability to edit Wikipedia is essentially screwed now. I'm not even angry about it.

I just think it's a petty, spiteful way to act. Especially for someone who claims they don't like nastiness. At least be consistent about it, hold people you agree with accountable if they act out of line, and don't do things just to screw people that you disagree with over. And I wasn't trying to hide anything. They are different sites, with different standards, and I'm not topic banned here. So there was no reason to bring it up. Whatever you want to tell yourself to justify things though. You've dealt with me like what, once before? And somehow you seem to think you know a real lot about my history and motivations. The whole thing is just totally laughable on it's face. At the end of the day I could really care less. Petty, vengeful people like you are a dime a dozen on here. So it's really nothing in the grand scheme of things. -Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated furry

I kindly request that you add your AI deletion requests to the appropriate category next time. Otherwise, it becomes harder for people to find Trade (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: I usually add categories, but I wasn't sure which ones would be appropriate in this case since I don't usually work in the area. Although I see now that there's a category specifically for AI artwork. So I'll be sure to add it next time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Adamant1, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: Thanks. You to. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons

Saberia informar o problema que houve com o Flickr2? Estou tentando baixar imagens, mas sem êxito. Luiz79 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Luiz79: I don't use it. So I can't really say if it's working or not either way. You might ask about it on the Village pump or Commons talk:Flickr2Commons though. Sorry. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Antonio Carbonati

Hi, I replied to you about Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Etchings by Antonio Carbonati. Please tag me in your answers to see the notification Moxmarco (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice uploads

I just wanted to say that I like all of your postcard uploads. Thank you for contributing them and taking the time to share them.--SDudley (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Voting twice

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but you voted twice on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hyju. Don’t do this again. Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice. That can happen when the conversation is just a wall of text by one user. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A “please” might have been nice. I’m sure it wasn’t done intentionally. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ebay coin/ token photo licensed as PD (Public Domain)

Your upload here: File:Brown's Cigars & Tobacco token front.jpg

I looked at the link you provided, but I do not see any license. Could you provide a link to Ebay's policy related to individual account owner's posting their own photos or scans? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ooligan: The coin was created in 1910 and the photograph is to generic itself to be copyrighted. Usually in those cases we just assume PD-US-expired is appropriate. Like for example the many scans of postcards that are copied from places like eBay and Flickr even though the person who did the scan might (usually wrongly) think their version is copyrighted. Although if you want to ask for clarification about it on the Village pump be my guest. I'm not going to lose sleep over it if the rules end up being different for coins then postcards or photographs of other items where that seems to be how we do things. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1, thanks for the explanation. It seems like there is great potential to upload many more quality photos from Ebay. Again, thank you. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Obscenity debate

FWIW, I reread your comments and you actually did cite your source properly. I apologise, I missed the bit where you did so. Overall, a well reasoned argument… with a source! Definitely not bullshitting. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

AI art

My understanding is that generative art uses an existing corpus of images to generate the images. If this is the case, then if any non-free images were used to train the dataset, would that potentially make the artwork a derivative artwork? In that case, I’m curious how Commins could accept the artwork… I mean, we don’t allow fair use images for similar reasons, right?

It follows if this is true that if we don’t know the service that generated the image, then we can’t know its dataset (and similarly if we do know the service and don’t know the dataset) and thus we can’t determine if the images used to train the service were all free! And if we do know the service and we do know the dataset, and it includes non-free images then we would not be able to use any images generated from the service.

Does this make sense? Is this a reasonable conclusion? Thought I’d get your take as you seem to have a good handle on this matter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's more complicated than that. It's presumably analogous to the issue of a human artist creating an "imaginary" image of a real person, building, etc. Here are a few cases:

• Copyrighted monument or building in a country with no freedom of panorama (e.g. the Memorial of Rebirth in Bucharest, or the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris): there is presumably no way to create a "free" image of this. Any image that identifiably shows this monument/building is going to violate the sculptor/architect's copyright.
• A building that is itself either in the public domain or where FoP allows images (e.g. the White House in Washington, D.C. or the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth: if a human were to be drawing this, they could, in principal, either (a) draw from life, (b) draw from one copyrighted image, (c) draw from one uncopyrighted or free-licensed image, or (d) draw from a variety of images, some of them copyrighted. Clearly case (a) and (assuming any licenses are complied with) case (c) are fine, and equally clearly case (b) is not. Case (d) is the tricky one, and it is exactly analogous to what will typically happen with generative AI unless a prompt steers it toward working from some particular source. The question is always going to be: was it unduly influenced by one unacknowledged source (or a small number of unacknowledged sources). Note that without some criterion like that, no one could draw (for example) a picture of the White House because we've all seen (and presumably been influenced by) numerous copyrighted images of the White House.2

There are other cases, but I think that shows why this is complicated. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: I pretty much agree with Jmabel's points. An AI generated image of say something like an otherwise copyrighted building in a country without FOP would obviously be copyrighted. I've also seen plenty of instances where the backgrounds in images are clearly cropped from previous photographs, which I assume were in the original training set. I assume they would be copyrighted also.

You can get into some grey with images that are based on original IPs though. It's not really clear to me where the line is with something that is clearly based on exiting characters or stories but might not be a 1/1 recreation of either one. Like with File:Sonic Diffusion art of anthropomorphic cat in rain.png. That image was clearly based on the Sonic cartoon universe and looks a lot like several characters in it. Although I can't point to exactly which one and when I nominated it for deletion @Prototyperspective: argued that something being based on preexisting characters does not make it a problem. So who knows. Although I'd argue the risk to reward makes it not worth keeping images like that one, because really, what's being gained eductionally by keeping that image on Commons? Absolutely nothing.

There's also other things to consider besides purely copyright. For instance the inherent lack of a source with anything generated by AI. Although certain people would argue that AI generated artwork is no different then something created in Photoshop. The source of an image is clearly different then what software it was created with. We certainly can't say the source of a photograph is Photoshop. So I don't why it would be acceptable to cite an AI generator as the source of AI generated image. At least with someone uploading a drawing they made in Photoshop you can ask what they based their artwork on. In the case of AI artwork there's no way to do that since the training data isn't available to the public.

I think people wrongly conflate a human work being inspired by past experiences, with how AI art generators create duratives by combining multiple previous works into an original. The word "original" doing a lot of heavy lifting of course. Although I don't think the risk is worth the benefit in most cases anyway. As a lot of the AI generated images people upload to here aren't even worth the processing cycles that were used to create them. It's not like we to allow for everything just to host the 1% that are (or might be) educational either. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

A brief note since I was mentioned; in the DR I agreed that this image you linked here should probably be deleted…I just said that basing it on pre-existing characters is not a problem, otherwise all contents of Category:Middle-earth fan art would need to be deleted since they're based on characters of Tolkien's universe (mainly the books).

The source of an AI image is the user tasking the AI where AI play the major role but both AI prompter / prompt engineer and the software should be named I think. If LAION-5B is all StableDiffusion uses, that dataset is public. The tools learn to 'understand' what is in the image via attached texts so new texts creates new visuals that match them starting from random noise; artists usually don't specify their inspirations and they usually if not always don't know them all anymore either since their learning stretches back to when they where infants where they learned how objects look like and were later influenced by lots of different copyrighted works somewhere in the back of their mind to different degrees in respect to the new artwork they created. Diffusion from random noise is not combining previous works into a new original similar to cut-and-pasting parts of existing images, it's a small-sized AI, no images included, that has learned the concepts in the images and creates it anew. If you deliberately write a prompt that is just the name of a character from a film franchise, it'll likely create a copyvio; but otherwise people can use these tools to create anything imaginable using its lexicon of terms it understands. There are large risks with cutting down on general purpose tools as useful and general as these. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Just to clarify, I wasn't saying images based on pre-existing characters is a problem in general, I was saying the specific images that I nominated for deletion are problem because they are based on pre-exiting characters. Images based on pre-existing characters are a problem when they are close enough to the original to be duratives and not when they aren't. Know one claimed otherwise. I certainly haven't and nowhere have I said images based on pre-exiting characters in general should be nominated for deletion or otherwise don't belong on Commons. I think those specific images are close enough to characters in the Sonic franchise to justify deleting them though. I'm sure you get the difference.

Random noise is not combining previous works into a new original similar to cut-and-pasting parts of existing images I can't speak for other AI image generators, but I've generated thousands of images with DALL-E at this point and it clearly crops images from original photographs if you have it generate the same scene enough times or if what your asking it generate is "niche" enough that it was only trained on a small set of images to begin with. Usually it will add other elements to the scene that are clearly AI generated, but that doesn't mean the cropped photographs aren't recreations of the original photographs in the training set or copyrighted. There's nothing inherent to diffusion models that would keep an AI image generator from doing that either. Like if it's only trained on 5 images to begin with then sure it's going to "learn to 'understand' what is in the image via attached texts" or whatever, but the resulting image will still be heavily based on the 5 original photographs regardless. You act like if someone asks an AI generator for an image of a spaceship landing on Mars that it will partially (or largely) be based on images of cats eating kibble cat food. That's not how they work. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1, Prototyperspective and Jmablel thank you for your respectful and informative responses. The issue is definitely more complex than I had first realised! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

[cross-posted] On the derivative character drawing thing: usually (maybe always?) no problem if it's based on a verbal description of a character; another matter if it's based on another drawing or other image. So, my own image of Gandalf based solely on Tolkien's text would be fine, but if a Tolkien drawing is still in copyright then anything derived from that would be a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1 so... what is the threshold at which the AI generated image no longer becomes a copyright infringement problem? One thing I would have thought would that we need to actually need to see the training data set used to generate the AI image. If we don't know that, then we cannot know if the image is truly free, at least that's what I would have thought. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

JFYI you don't decide that even if you thought much about it and think it's an important interesting subject to you. Copyright law decides that and everything so far shows these are not infringing copyright even if a few artists allege that and fail.

And no, it does not cut and paste parts of images which it doesn't have packaged with the software. If you prompt specifically something for which it, roughly speaking, only had seen one image matching the concept, it'll look similar to that one, just like you can use your skills to draw portraits to draw one exactly like a painting that already exists. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

JFYI you don't decide that even if you thought much about it and think it's an important interesting subject to you. I could say the same about literally every comment you've ever made related to AI artwork. 99% of what you write is pure speculation and conjecture. Even the article you linked to in defense of your personal opinion that the law decided AI artwork can't be copyrighted says nobody knows what the copyright status is or will be. The difference between you and me is that I'm more then to admit that it's all speculation at this point and that there multiple opinions about it out there, all of which have their pros and cons. Whereas all you do is act like your opinion that AI artwork can't be copyrighted no matter what is the correct, god given truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant about the topic.

That really goes for your general attitude about this to. Your response to me saying AI generators cut and paste parts of the images that they are trained on sometimes is another example of that. What actual evidence do you have that they don't do that sometimes outside of using just making false analogies to how human's create art? Because I haven't seen any and you'll sit here all day speculating about this and then attack anyone everyone else for doing the same exact thing. So again, what evidence do you have that AI art generators don't cut and paste parts of images that there are trained on when generating images sometimes? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if courts rule that the question of whether Image A infringes on the copyright of Image B is going to be in any way affected by whether Image A was created by generative AI, and astounded if they not only make a distinction but allow more leeway to AI. It can be very difficult to tell whether an image created by a human infringes on a particular copyright, and I think all of us who follow court rulings in this area are sometimes surprised in one direction, sometimes in the other. In general, Commons approach has been to be pretty conservative: we tend not to host a user-made image that we think is at all likely to infringe a copyright; I think we go beyond just "is it more likely than not to infringe" to "would it be reasonable to consider it an infringement". I don't see us having any reason to apply a different standard to AI-generated artwork in terms of judging likely copyright infringements. (Keep in mind: except in the rare case where there has been a legal ruling, these are always judgement calls in terms of what we think a court would say.)

The trickier issue is one of scope. We seem to be forming a consensus that (with the possible exception of images that are specifically hosted as examples of the capability of generative AI) the hurdle for generative AI to be considered in scope is at least as high as that for user-created non-photographic art, and possibly higher. There are a handful of users (Prototyperspective clearly being one of them) who seem to want a more generous scope for generative AI, but I think it's safe to say that among those of us who have been discussion this, at least two thirds of the participants either opt for "same standard as user-created art" or something even stricter. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Jmabel whilst the copyright status under law is still somewhat unclear, I think ((as you already say) Commons needs to have a position on this matter. The question I have is how to know what that position is? We seem to have some fairly clear guidelines around derived non-generated images, could we come up with guidelines around AI generated images? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: Since this is on someone else's talk page, I was trying to stay mostly away from things that are just a matter of my own opinion, but as far as works that derive from copyrighted works, and in terms only of possible copyright infringement, I'd ignore the fact that generative AI was involved. As I said above, my guess is that in terms of infringement, I'd be surprised if courts decide that the involvement of generative AI has any bearing. Scope is a separate matter. My own take would probably to treat them the same way we treat user-generated illustrations, which is to say a pretty high bar for being in scope, but not an outright ban. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Photographs from Angola

Hi ! I assumed good faith from the Flickr uploader. Do you think it's better if we don't? I can make a batch deletion. Sintegrity (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sintegrity: Hi, it's probably better not to just assume good faith when it comes to images from Flickr since people routinely upload other people's photographs there. If you want to deal with the images that are left through a batch deletion request that would be appreciated though. Otherwise one of us can just continue nominating them for deletion in smaller DRs, whatever. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I prefere not to bother you with this job, because I've uploaded many of them >.< Sintegrity (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done ;) Sintegrity (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Logos_of_colleges_in_the_United_States

Logos of colleges in the United States has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Astros4477 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To check

Good morning. I report the photos uploaded by this user Punzogabriele. According to information published by this user, the photos are copied from various websites (www.beweb.chiesacattolica.it - santiebeati.it - www.heiligenlexikon.de/ - www.italia.it/it/campania/benevento/luoghi-della-cultura/archivio-di-stato---benevento), perhaps in violation of the owners' rights. I ask you to check. Thank you. Croberto68 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Postcardcatfinder

Hello Andamant1, did you know my tool Postcardcatfinder. Finally I wrote the documentation. Maybe it will help you. Best regards --sk (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I couldn't really figure it out when I tried it a while ago but I've been meaning to use it again at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

At the moment you flooded the Category:Postcards with new images. How did you find this images? A special search query? I have also some stored under User:Stefan_Kühn/Postcards#New_images. - It will take a little time to sort all this postcards. But thanks for your work. --sk (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Using the special search for JPG files with the word "postcard" in the description from Wikiproject Postcards. It was at like 58 thousand results a few months ago and I've gotten it down to about 45 thousand at this point. There's a lot of other stuff mixed in though. Hence why I've dumping files in the main postcard category. It helps seperate things. I'm actually planning on going through and better categorizing them sometime this week. Any help would be appreciated though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andamant1, I have collect also some raw searches strings under User:Stefan_Kühn/Postcards#Todo. Maybe there is also some inspiration for you. I will help you to clean out the "Unsorted postcard". --sk (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning on creating a separate "todo" page for the Wikiproject at some point where we can put stuff like that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsorted postcards

Hi. Thanks for your work. An issue: I've noticed multiple instances of you adding category "unsorted postcard" on files that are not postcards. Tobacco cards are not postcards. Not everything photographed by Detroit Publishing is a postcard. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. That can happen because I'm putting files there from a raw search for uncategorized files containing the word "postcard" and unfortunately there's a lot of files containing the word that aren't actually postcards to begin with. Which is one of the reasons I'm doing it. The unsorted postcards category is only a temporary place holder though and I review images I put there pretty regularly. Plus I check any images in the category that are moved by someone else. So things like that will be fixed. Except I will say that there's a wider issue already with "normal" images by Detroit Publishing Company being mixed in with ones of postcards to begin with and that's something that needs broader work on. Any help is appreciated though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Question: Many modern images from digital cameras had also in the description "postcard". And they are not postcards.

• 
  the "old postcard" look
• 
  "Postcard Perfection".
• 
  Another postcard from Rottingdean!

Should we create a c:Category:Postcard in description but image is not a postcard. I would like to mark this images (Maybe other cat name). So we can exclude this images from future raw search ( -incategory:"..." ). --sk (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Stefan Kühn: That would be a good idea. I was actually planning on renaming the images at some point but that might be a better way to deal with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So go ahead. Take a name for this new category. You are a native speaker in English. You should find the best name for this category. --sk (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Stefan Kühn: I went with Category:Images misdescribed as postcards. Hopefully that works. It can always be changed later if need be. I kind of like the idea of having other categories for other types of misdescribed images though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• You have twice added "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" to File:Lee Meriwether as Catwoman 1966.jpg (I removed it the first time). Who misidentified it as a postcard, and in what context? If that happened on Wikimedia, I don't see evidence of it. Where did you get the information that someone somewhere misidentified it as a postcard, and why does that misidentification need to be have a category on Wikimedia? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you search in Commons like Catwoman postcards -insource:"Postcards of" you will normally only get postcard without some category "Postcards of New York" or so. But in this images of Catwomen is the phrase "is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles.". So in every search this image is included. With this new category we can exclude images like this. --sk (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: The reason I'm adding the category is because of essentially what Stefan Kühn has said. There's a paragraph in the licensing description of a lot of files containing the word "postcard" that screws with search results if we want to find uncategorized images of postcards. Although in those cases adding "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" is just temporary because I'm going through and cleaning up the text, but it at least helps us to know which files are legitimately postcards or just contain the word "postcard" in the meantime. It's kind of a pain to go through the search results and do it without manually without adding "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" first though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm growing to really dislike that category, since in the examples I see, no one is now nor has ever misidentified the media as a postcard. No one. If a the word "postcard" in a lengthy canned discussion of US copyright law is giving you false hits when you search for "postcard", perhaps your objection is with the canned explanation, and maybe you could move or remove or reword that. Your user talk page is not a postcard - but the word "postcard" appears multiple times here, so maybe you should add the misidentified as a postcard category to your user talk page? Seriously, I generally appreciate your work, but I doubt the best way to go about this is to add a category that makes a FALSE claim to a large number of images. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (⧼r⧽) 15:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • What is your planned process? Is the category intended as something very short term while you are doing edits, or do you plan to leave it? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Right now I'm using it as a short term category so I can systematically edit the files in AutoWikiBrowser. I'll probably delete it after I'm done, but its the most efficient way to do things at this point. It should be fairly short term work depending on how time I can devote to it over the next couple of weeks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll trust you on that. Meanwhile since it's intended as a temporary maintenance category, may I suggest making this a hidden category {{Hiddencat}}? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the suggestion. I added it to the other categories to just for the heck of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Good work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

File:San Policarpo interno.pdf

Dear Adamant1 - I beg your pardon, could you help me? I wanted to propose my own file for deletion (no correct copyright, it was a mistaky).... I was not able to complete the procedure correctly, it is the first time I try. Could you take look to my contribution and fix my mistakes? It would be great, sorry, sorry - And I guess the same problems with copyright might concern most files in the category  :-( Greetings LucaLuca (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@LucaLuca: It looks like everything is fine with the DR. Except you didn't add the maintenance categories, but that's not a super big issue. I'll probably nominate the other images of the church for deletion at some point when I have the time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, --LucaLuca (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey

I appreciate your good sense and reasonable viewpoints in ANU. Your views are helpful in working out fair decisions. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: Thanks. That's very kind of you. I appreciate the good sense and reasonableness on your end also. Both are extremely rare on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards

You have been adding "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" but at File:1963 Ron Cochran News Program Set Desk ABC Commentator Anchor Press Photo.jpg and others, the only mention of a postcard is in the copyright quote of what a perceptible copy is: "The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles." RAN (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@RAN: Yeah, I'm aware. The quote is exactly why I've been putting the images in the category. I already explained it above, but I've been going through and removing the quote from the files using AutoWikiBrowser so they don't show up searches for postcards. Doing so with a temporary maintenance category is the easiest way to do that for various reasons that I don't feel the need to get into. Suffice to say, I know what I'm doing and I have valid reasons for making the edits. Ones that's I've already explained and people seem to support. So what's the actual issue here? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So in which way are you going to edit these files? I mean the word "Postcard" may appear there for a reason. Will you delete it anyway? Are you entitled to do this? Is it the best solution to your problem? You added lots of files by User:Aristeas to that category because he uses that word in his credits template. Wouldn't it be better to contact the user first? --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sitacuisses: I assume your talking about the files in Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates). In that case I'll probably just leave the images as is for now since the text seems to be part of a template further upstream that isn't editable. As to the general questions,

• 1. It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's better to just delete the text, sometimes it isn't. No two situations are the same.
• 2. I think I am "entitled" to do it. I made a request to have similar text removed on the bot request board a month ago and no one objected to it at the time. I've also not received any objections since then. Even though as you can see multiple people have asked me about it, including admins. So I don't see why I wouldn't be.
• 3. It's the best solution to the problem that I and User:Stefan Kühn have come up with. There might be a better one, but we've both spent a lot of time editing in the area, that's what we came up with, and no one has proposed an alternative. It's not like there aren't maintenance categories already either. So I don't really see what the issue with how we are doing it is. I don't personally think the text is necessary in most cases. Although I've gone out of my to preserve any information about the files that might be useful.

Hopefully that's adequate. Of course there are multiple ways to do things on here and there's usually not a "best" way to do things across the board either. But I am open to any suggestions if you or anyone else has an alternative. Otherwise I plan to stick to how I'm currently doing things. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. Many thanks to Sitacuisses for making me aware of this funny situation! @Adamant1: In what way are my photos which you have added to Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates) “misdescribed as postcards”? The licensing template just mentions the use of any of these photos for a postcard as an example (because several photos by me have been used for postcards by several re-users, e.g. by welfare and social facilities); it does not “describe” the photos as postcards. Therefore it seems obvious to me that the category does not apply to my photos. Could you please remove my photos again from your category? Or should I do it myself? Best, – Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PS1: Or you could rename your category to something describing the situation better; e.g. “Category:Files which are no postcards but use licensing templates using the word ‘postcard’”. That would indeed apply to my photos and I would have no objections. – Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PS2: Could you also please point us to a concise description of “the problem that I and User:Stefan Kühn have come up with”? Your statement above seems to assume that everybody already knows everything about that problem, but that’s not the case and we don’t have the time to browse all your edits just in order to understand what you are trying to do. – Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aristeas: I have zero problem with using a different name for the category, but it follows the whole "Images misdescribed" thing of similar maintenance categories and I'm trying to keep things as uniform as possible to help organize it all. Plus, you have to admit that “Category:Files which are no postcards but use licensing templates using the word ‘postcard’” is a little convoluted. I don't see how it matters anyway since it's a hidden category to begin with either. That said, I'm more then willing to use a different name for the category if it makes sense and can follow how the other maintenance categories are named. Just as a side to that, although you uploaded the images, by doing so you agreed to have the community edit them and that inherently be in a way that you disagree with sometimes. Again, that's not to say I'm not open to renaming the category or doing some other solution, but it should at least be in a way that we can all agree on and doesn't make it harder for me or anyone else to keep track of things.

To your second PS, both User:Stefan Kühn and I have described the issue several times now, both on this talk page and in other places, and I don't feel like rehashing it. But to summarize, there's a special search here for JPEG files containing the word "postcard" either in their file name or descriptions, but aren't organized in a category for images of postcards. At one point it contained 52 thousands images, a lot of them not being actual images of postcards, and I've gotten it down to roughly 27,000 at this point. Anyway, things like the template in attached to your photograph pollutes the results. Therefore making it essentially impossible to find images of actual postcards. But adding Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates) to the files is essentially a way to exclude them from the results. Since it includes the files in a category for postcards without being categorized in the process. I'm sure there might be a better way to do it, but as I've said, that's the one me and Stefan Kühn came up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The more I read, the more I'm convinced that this is an unproportional and unsustainable effort which you will have to explain again and again, but it's not the best solution. If your search doesn't work, you need to modify your search approach rather than delete words from tens of thousands of file descriptions. It should be sufficient to add some template/unique keyword to those files and modify your search in such a way that it doesn't show files which contain that keyword. I'm not an expert for the details of the advanced search feature, but I guess there are some pages where you can ask for help, like Commons:Village pump or en:Help talk:Searching. Make sure that the template or category name you add for that purpose is self-explanatory and unobtrusive. --Sitacuisses (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd have that impression as someone who hasn't worked in the area for months like Stefan Kühn and I have. I'll probably modify the search to exclude certain things at some point, but there's hundreds of variations of the text and it wouldn't be practical to exclude them all. It's not like I didn't think of that though. I'll probably do it with the text in the template of your files at some point, but I'm still going through the images.

I'm aware of the village pump and help desk. I did actually ask in several places if the text in some instances could be removed by a bot or through AutoWikiBrowser and no one objected to it in either instance even though both conversations were open for weeks. So I don't think there's an issue with the edits per say. Although I agree that the maintenance categories aren't a sustainable long-term solution, but nowhere have I said they were meant to be one. Like I said, I will probably add an expectation to the search for certain sentences at some point, but it's just not there because of how many images and different versions of the text are left to be sorted through. Get back to me in a couple weeks or a month and that's probably what I'll do once I'm done organizing things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You may have noticed by now that many people don't understand what you're doing at all, so if nobody objected your requests it may have been a combination of lack of understanding and COM:AGF. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to agree that there's a difference between a couple of random people on my talk page not understanding something after the fact versus anyone having a problem with what I'm doing, it actually being, and me not being clear about what what I was doing in the original discussions. They aren't the same thing and I was pretty clear what my intent was when I made the original requests. Just because you don't understand it a month later doesn't have any bearing on that or automatically make it an issue, and I certainly haven't seen you give me a reason why it would be one. Let alone propose a solution. Be my guest though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm having trouble following this, and I realize it wasn't written for me, but Adamant1, are you saying that if the word "postcard" appears anywhere on a file page of a file that isn't a postcard, then it should be called "misdescribed as a postcard"? This template also mentions greeting cards, jewelry, etc. Does that make the image also misdescribed a greeting card, as jewelry etc.? If not, could you make a succinct statement as to why you are singling out "postcard" and what exactly is the problem you are trying to solve here? Again, I may be quite confused, so it may be that even the premise of my questions is wrong; if so, please clarify that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I'm mainly focusing on the word "postcard" so the images won't show up in this search for uncategorized images of postcards. Although I think the text is totally redundant and unhelpful to begin with outside of screwing with search results for uncategorized postcards, but I'm mainly editing and filtering it out just for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: couldn't you come up with a more innocuously named maintenance cat (or not even a cat, just a template that is used strictly as a tag and does not even produce any visible text, just an HTML comment), and adjust the search accordingly? - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I could. At least when it comes to a less innocuously named maintenance cat. I had actually planned on doing that or just removing thre category all together depending on the circumstances once things are more sorted out. I don't think its at that point though since there's still like 40 different versions of the text and I don't think there's a one size fits all solution here. I'm not sure how the template would work though, but I'm happy to look into it once things are at a more managable point. Probably in a week or two once I get down to less then 10,000 results since it won't load anymore past that. I'm not going implement something completely different now if it turns out there's no reason to once I've sorted things out though. Except maybe for changing the name of the category but it should be better then the current one and I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Feel free to make a suggestion if you have one though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

ANU

Hi, There is a thread concerning you on COM:ANU#Adamant1. Yann (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi, I want to let you know that I reverted your "postcard" revert. Broichmore was right. If there are JPG and TIFF files of the same image they should not be in separate categories. That is the reasoning behind having Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs and Category:LC TIF images with categorized JPGs‎ and Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs‎. It is my belief and also Jmabel's that Fæ (who uploaded these images before he was "driven off") would not have wanted the TIFF and JPG files in the same category. Infrogmation first alerted me to this during the time Fæ was uploading massive numbers of images. Although no one seems to be able to point to a formal "discussion" about this, other editors seem to agree in that they comply with this category arrangement. Krok6kola (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: I'm not going to push the issue since the whole thing just seems super petty and mundane to me, but Broichmore was the one who uploaded the images originally. So this has nothing to do with Fæ. Except for them coming up with the idea except specifically for images related to the Library of Congress, which these have nothing to do with. There's no reason what-so-ever that decision should have broader application to all TIFF images that are uploaded here, in perpetuity, or that are uploaded by other users and have nothing to do with the Library of Congress. Especially considering the lack of a formal "discussion" about it. At the end of the day we are here to curate images, which inherently includes putting them in relevant categories. It's at the back bone of the project and at least IMO anything that gets in the way of that goes against the projects goals. More so considering there has apparently been no discussion about it in this case, out of one conversation where at least a few people said they thought TIFFs should be able to go into categories regardless.

And just a note to @Jmabel: since he seems hung up on it, that's one of the reasons why I would call removing the categories vandalism. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." I don't see how intentionally creating a scenario where it makes it harder for re-users to find an image, reverting some categorizing said image, and then continuing to do the revert while refusing to discuss them on your talk page doesn't "deliberately obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." Especially since again, there's apparently been no broader conversation about doing it that way out of files specifically related to the Fae or the Library of Congress and Commons:Categories certainly doesn't say anything about it. Although as I've said I'm not going to push the issue beyond what I have since it's extremely biennial to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not (refreshingly) not Wikipedia. Krok6kola (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The question is which approach actually aids the most discovery of the "correct" image by the largest number of people. I personally think that half-hiding TIFFs where there is an available version of the image in a more web-friendly format is a plus, not a minus. Again, I welcome a proper discussion of this as a policy/guideline issue, but users slagging each other over it is another matter. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Shouldn't the person who thinks it's the proper way to do things be the one to discuss turning it into a policy/guideline though? Commons:Categories is a thing and an official policy in the meantime and there's no reason to ignore it over something that clearly hasn't been discussed. @Krok6kola: true, but I think at least according to @Jmabel: we inherit a lot of their guidelines and policies, at least in spirit if not officially. I see no reason the definition of "vandalism" would be that different here then on Wikipedia regardless. Although admittedly Commons:Vandalism is rather sparse on the details. Who knows though, maybe it is. But I can only go off of the definitions I have available to me and at least @Jmabel: (if no one else) thinks policies transfer between projects. So..... --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been a longstanding consensus among at least a large number of the people who import a lot of GLAM content. Yes, it would appear that one of the few formal discussions of it dealt with certain NARA/LOC content, but the basis for the conclusions there does not seem to me to have had anything to do with the origin of the content beyond it coming from a GLAM, and there have been many years of edits by many people going the same direction. I think it would be a reasonable thing do discuss and while you are right that, in principle, it probably should have had a more formal discussion before being treated as anything like a guideline, I think that the current informal consensus runs more in Broichmore's direction than yours, so, really, it would make just as much sense for you to propose that people stop doing this as for someone to propose that this become a formal policy. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have zero problem with proposing people stop doing it in theory. I probably would have done that if not for the petty, uncooperative way Broichmore dealt with it. I do think it's generally on the person who continues an edit war by claiming their edits are fine because they uploaded the images to further discuss things though. Otherwise, really why would I or else anyone care about their opinion? Admittedly this isn't a court, but I think the burden of proof that it was OK to remove the categories was on Broichmore regardless and one of the ways they could have done that is by starting a conversation about it on the Village pump. I don't see much use in me doing that simply to be like "Hey, is it cool to categorize images?" That seems like a no brainer. Especially since I was recently criticized on ANU for asking to many questions. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A Farewell to Arms and Derivative Works

Hello! I noticed you posted a comment over on this deletion request. You are right that the work gets its own copyright, and in this case that copyright had expired in 1960. However under subsequent court rulings, including Stewart v. Abend, the derivative works are subject to the copyright of the original since they are utilizing that original works' ideas. The most famous example of this is It's a Wonderful Life which is in the public domain, but its source material is not. The derivative is then restricted in its re-use until both it and the original are public domain. In the case of A Farewell to Arms that will be public domain next year thus freeing up re-use on Commons of both the book and the 1932 film. SDudley (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong category, please remove

Hello @Adamant1,

why do you sort many of my pictures into the "Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates)". This word does not appear at all in the image description. I only asked for the following in the "Using this image" section: "If you use this image in printed media (e.g. in a book, for a postcard, etc.), please send me a sample copy. Thank you very much!". But this has nothing to do with the image description. So could you please remove this category from all my pictures, as this category is completely wrong.

Many thanks in advance and best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joachim Köhler: I've already explained it pretty thoroughly in conversations about it above this one that your free to read through. I don't really feel like repeating myself about it. Except to say that it's hidden anyway and will be removed once I'm done with what I'm doing. Although I'm open to a name for the category that better describes things in the meantime. I have yet to see anyone present one though, but that would be one option on your end if you think it's that much of a problem. Otherwise, like I've said it will dealt with once I'm done. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Adamant1,

Thank you for your answer. I have already read the explanations before I wrote this request here. But the more I read, the less I understood. However, I suspect that the problem is not the name of the category, but the query, i.e. the search for the corresponding files. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on Wikidata queries (although I do know a bit about SQL queries). But if I have understood the problem correctly, then you would have to restrict the query to the "Description" section and search for the term postcard in the most common languages. I have no idea whether this would solve your problem. You can only ask the experts how to query this correctly.

Best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I just assumed that if you have read through the explanations before then you would have known the category is temporary and that I'm going to remove it from the files when I'm done with what I'm doing. As far as I know this isn't a thing to do with Wikidata queries. Although I didn't come up with the custom search I'm using to find uncategorized images of postcards originally. Regardless, what I'll probably do when I'm done sorting everything out is exclude certain templates from the search if it's possible. I'm not at that point yet though and I'd prefer if things stay how they are until I'm done. Otherwise it just screws up what I'm doing. It's not like there aren't maintenance categories or that those categories are 100% descriptive of their purpose to begin with anyway. Often times I don't understand them myself, but yet, I'm not out there asking for them to be removed from the files they have been added to either. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: should he feel free to remove this category? Because, if not, then it is misnamed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't think he should because it will screw up what I'm using it for. I've said above multiple times now that people who think it is misnamed can propose a better one and I'll move the images. I don't see you or anyone else giving me another name for the category though. Even though your the ones who seem to have a problem with it. Personally, I think it's fine and this whole thing is being way over discussed. How many files are there in Category:PD textlogo that aren't technically "only simple geometric shapes or text" and where is anyone being burned at the stake about it? Regardless, propose a name and I'll create another category, but I think the current one is fine for now and there isn't a name that will satisfy everyone or be totally, 100% perfectly descriptive anyway. Like seriously, why not just let me finish what I'm doing and deal with it on my own like I said I'm in the process of doing? You can't honestly tell me it's that much of an issue that it's worth all this overwrought concern trolling over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Photographs possibly misdescribed a postcards (licensing templates)". "Temp cat for Adamant1's postcard template check". Etc. The cat name shouldn't say they are "misdescribed" if that is only TBD. - Jmabel ! talk

It's not TBD though. The templates in the files contain the word "postcard" and category filters them out of a search for uncategorized images of postcards, which is the whole point. Although I "misdescribed" isn't optimal language, but then no one has proposed an alternative either. So...really at the end of the day I rather just exclude templates containing the word "postcard" from the search. I just haven't quite gotten there yet. I really don't appreciate people acting like how I'm currently doing it is an issue without actually saying why or proposing an alternative though. It really comes off like "I just don't like it." --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: and @Joachim Köhler: I created Category:Temporary maintenance category for files containing images of photographs containing the word "postcard", but in the file name or description, not in the template and Category:Temporary maintenance category for files containing images of photographs containing templates containing the word "postcard" hopefully they are more descriptive. Although I think the names are absolutely Fing trash, but I guess on other people for concern trolling about it without coming up with better names. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Well now it looks it's messed up and I can't tell what went where or how to sort it out again. Thanks for nothing. What a fucking crock of bullshit. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Usually we do not edit archived talk pages, but in the paragraph above two category links were messed up; I have taken the liberty to fix them, now the paragraph is readable. Hope it helps, – Aristeas (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)