This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
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.
@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!
@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)
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)
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!
@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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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. GMGtalk13:10, 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)
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)
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.
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. 103.141.159.23105:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
you mentioned the same file twice in this DR. Did you actually mean another file when you wrote "Same goes for […]"? Regards --Rosenzweigτ15:54, 23 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)
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!
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.
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.
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)"
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."
@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)
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)
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
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)
@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.
{{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)
@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)
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.
@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.
23:47, 15 September 2022 - Guido den Broeder makes copyedits, including an addition related to historical creators ("Any known historic creator whose works [...]")
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. Эlcobbolatalk19:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
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)
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."
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)
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!
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 --Rosenzweigτ13:02, 22 January 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 ! talk00:47, 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)
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)
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!
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 ! talk15:46, 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 ! talk19:48, 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)
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 --Rosenzweigτ15:32, 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:
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 ! talk01:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I am leaving this heads up on your talk page for several reasons:
To make sure you see my replies to your comments;
Everyone is human, Even Homer nods. You deserve a fair chance to learn from your mistakes;
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.
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
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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.
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!
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)
@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.
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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.
@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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
@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)
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.
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. --Rosenzweigτ19:50, 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)
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)
(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 ! talk17:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
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)
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. @Sailko93.70.13.5909:31, 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?
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.
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)
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.
(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
@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)
[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 ! talk19:16, 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 ! talk23:10, 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 ! talk02:47, 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)
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!
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ! talk19:31, 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 ! talk22:49, 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)
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)
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 ! talk19:08, 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 ! talk20:05, 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)
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.
@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)
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.
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)
@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)
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)
Concern trolling
And I suppose [this] isn't concern trolling? I proposed two names that were roughly as succinct as what you had, but less misleading, and you went with this dissertation-length alternative. - Jmabel ! talk03:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but I must have missed your messages. What names did you propose? I can always re move the files to new categories if the names I came up with don't work for whatever reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Look in the history of this talk page (shortly before you more or less blanked it), you'll see what I wrote. - Jmabel ! talk19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I just archived the discussion because it seemed like it was over and my talk page was getting long. Regardless, I see that you suggested ""Temp cat for Adamant1's postcard template check." Assuming that's what your talking about that wouldn't be correct because I wasn't the one who came up with the idea to use the maintaince categories to begin with. I don't think its helpful to use category names as a way to single out or point the finger at particular users either. No other maintaince are that way, and again, it wasn't even my idea to begin with. Although something like that could work guess, but I still rather come up with a better solution long term. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
No, the maintaince categories already existed to a degree as part of Commons:WikiProject Postcards. The creation of these specific ones were originally suggested by Stefan Kühn further up in the original discussions. I'm just the one who got dog piled over it for some reason. I can just leave out "Adamant1's" from the categories though. Your suggestion is certainly better then what I came up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully I get the right category: I make the category to a hidden category. See this change. - @Adamant1: All this maintaining categories should be "hidden cateories". So they will not harm an other users. - @Jmabel: I hope this will be ok for you. If there is another problem please speak out this at Commons talk:WikiProject Postcards. I think together we will find a solution. --sk (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Greetings and some notes
Hi Adamant1, just some quick notes:
1) Thank you very much for renaming the maintenance category which includes my photographs! The new name is long but it has several clear advantages:
it avoids the term “misdescribed” (which implied wrongly that the user who has described the image has made an error);
it makes clear what the category is about; and
it makes clear that there is no need for action on the images themselves.
Especially the last point is important. I have seen more than once that new Commons users come along and stumble over old maintenance categories, templates etc. by users who are no longer active; then the new users often misunderstand the meaning of these leftovers and have a hard time to figure out their real significance. By using clear category names, template descriptions etc. we can avoid this. So if you ever consider to rename the category again please keep the new name clear.
2) The problematic word “postcard” on the description page of my photos originates from my credits template. Therefore it makes sense to add your maintenance category via that template, too. I have done this; now all images which use that template (and hence contain the word “postcard”) are auto-categorized into your category. Therefore I have removed the explict category from all my files, it is no longer needed there. If you ever want to rename the category again, just go to the implementation of the template, click “Edit”, search for the <includeonly>...</includeonly> part and rename the category there – all files will be recategorized automatically.
3) You could use the same approach with files from other users, too. If the word “postcard” is added via a custom template, just go to that template, edit the code, search for a <includeonly>...</includeonly> part (if there is no one, add it) and add the category there instead of adding it to any file. This is a much faster and much more flexible solution than adding the maintenance category manually to each single file.
4) If you want to quote/link a category, just type [[:Category:Category name]] (note the leading “:”) or {{c|Category name}}. Using {{Category:Category name}} will not link to the category, but embedd the description page of the category into your text.
@Aristeas: The problem with adding the category via the licensing template is that it just re-adds the images back to the custom search for some reason. Therefore making the category totally useless. So do you know why that might be the case or have a solution for it? Otherwise I don't think it should be done that way. Not that I think it matters how the category is ultimately added to the file to begin with, but there's zero point in doing it through the template if doing so doesn't even solve the problem that the categories were created for in the first place. As an alternative is there a reason that the word "postcard" can't just be removed from the template since it's not really necessary anyway? I think that would be the easiest route to deal with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
BTW, I knew that wasn't going to work to begin with. That's why I repeatedly asked people to leave things alone until I was done and dealt with it myself. Now I just have to work around the files until you fix it on your end when I shouldn't have to because I was going to deal with it properly. No one has any patience on here though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The one who has not got any patience is you, my friend. Probably you just need to wait for some hours; the Mediawiki software and search need some time for category changes etc. done via templates. If waiting some hours does not help, there must be just something wrong with your search if it does not handle a category which was added via a template.
But taking the degree of competence into account which shows itself here, and the degree of patience and gratefulness you show when people try to help you with your funny postcard search, I come to the conclusion that it is better not to invest more work into this issue. I have removed all uses of “postcard”, “Postkarte” etc. from my template. If my files still appear in your search results, please be patient and wait – as said above, the Mediawiki software and search need some time to keep track of such changes.
I just hope that this helps. I fear soon another eager user may come around and start a similar project to search for uncategorized books – simply by searching for “book”. Then we need to remove that word from all files and templates, too. And what will come next? In the end the whole approach to find uncategorized x by a simple search for the word “x” is oversimplified and will always cause problems. – Aristeas (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess we will cross that bridge when we come to it, but what might or might not happen in the future isn't really my issue. We'll see if you removing the word "postcard" from the template works though. I don't see why it wouldn't. But your images were still showing up in the search a while ago, which I assume was before you made the change. I've been dealing with this for at least a couple of months now and it never takes that long for the Mediawiki software and search to update things. Either it happens almost immediately or there's something else going on. Although I guess whatever it was is a non-issue now since you removed the word from the template. Thanks again for doing that. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. – Ah, maybe I have found why the template approach and the search did not work together. Do you still use this search query? Then it cannot find categories added via templates because it explicitly searches the source Wikitext for “postcard” categories. Adding -deepcat:"Images misdescribed as postcards" at the end of the search string should fix this – it excludes any files contained in any of the subcategories of Category:Images misdescribed as postcards. On the other hand we can probably abbreviate the search by skipping filetype:bitmap because filemime:image/jpeg already excludes any non-bitmap files. So the complete search string would be now:
postcard filemime:image/jpeg -insource:/\[\[Category:.+?ostcard.+?\]\]/ -deepcat:"Images misdescribed as postcards"
Maybe this can be helpful if you have do deal with other people who want to add maintenance categories via templates. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: You've been here long enough to know how to properly write and format a message. Maybe do it next time instead of continuing to post new, off-topic messages in old conversations after I've asked you twice now to stop doing it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I believe this one should be renamed. Any opposition evaporated long ago, all the subcategories have already been renamed, all articles in en.wp have been renamed as well. International was the brand name used for trucks made by the International Harvester company. The most combative editors have either passed or stopped editing, so perhaps I ought to start a new CfD? Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en-13:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: I'd say go ahead and change it. Your main opposition, Sammy D III, hasn't been active for at least a few years and they were acting like a raving lunatic anyway. So I don't think it really matters. I'll update the CfD once you make the changes. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - for the record, I used to side with Sammy D III but was brought around by overwhelming evidence. I am always happy when I unlearn something I thought was true. mr.choppers (talk)-en-13:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
DRs for in-use images
My understanding is that the primary purpose of Commons is to serve as an image host for Wikimedia projects, so I am somewhat confused by your repeated nomination of images that are in use on Wikimedia projects, and the claim that they're "out of scope" because you dislike them. I would very much appreciate if, prior to nominating things for deletion, you checked to see if they were in use, as correcting simple errors in deletion requests constitutes a large amount of unpleasant bureaucratic busywork. JPxG (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG: Sorry, but your understanding is wrong. The primary purpose of Commons is to be a repository of media that can "used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." Sure that includes Wikipedia projects, but in no way do files being used on other projects get a free pass from other requirements.
{tq|the claim that they're "out of scope" because you dislike them.}} I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I'm nominating images for deletion because I don't like them. In all honesty, I could really care less about this on personal level. Some files follow the guidelines and some don't. That's it. I make the reason for the DRs pretty clear. You can disagree, but please don't waste my time lying. I'm not going to waste mine repeating the guidelines to you, but "in use" doesn't mean "exempt from every other standard." There's multiple instances where it doesn't apply. Again, ones your free to disagree with but there's no bright line there and DRs are exactly the place to figure when or if something being "in use" is a valid reason to keep it. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Your issue with that isn't my problem. We're all adults here and your free to just take the L and move on like everyone else. I have to all the time myself. What's that saying, "don't hate the player, hate the game"? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, here is the entirety of the nomination statement you gave at the seven-image batch nomination you made earlier today:
The whole idea of an "AI generated toy" is nonsensical to begin with, but we don't host noneducational amateur artwork anyway. So these images should be deleted as OOS.
This nomination includes three images that are actively in use on projects. Your claim here, directly and explicitly, is that the English Wikipedia's article on the software en:DALL-E should have its lead/infobox image, which is a demonstration image made by said software given to illustrate its nature and capabilities, deleted from Commons because it is (again quoting your words directly) "noneducational amateur artwork". There are two explanations for this: either you are trying to get in-scope images deleted because you think they are "amateur artwork", or you are making driveby nominations without bothering to look at the file pages to see where they are in use. Which is it? JPxG (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Either you are trying to get in-scope images deleted because you think they are "amateur artwork", or you are making driveby nominations without bothering to look at the file pages to see where they are in use.@JPxG: Or maybe I've gone through and been involved in a lot of DRs having to do with AI generated images and there's a clear consensus that they are "noneducational amateur artwork" regardless of if the image is in use or not. Again, "don't hate the player, hate the game." I could really care less either way. But it's pretty clear that any half sane person on here thinks AI generated images are out of scope amateur artwork. Again, regardless of it's being used on another project or not. The problem with people who advocate for us hosting AI generated images is that their reasoning is circular and always boils down to them going off about how everyone else just hates the technology. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
You do not seem to have read my post, because the text you wrote here seems completely unrelated to anything I said. I am going to try to explain this to you for the fourth time: the image you nominated for deletion is the illustration for the English Wikipedia article on DALL-E, which is literally the exact image generation model that the image was created with; the image is explicitly used as a demonstration of the model. Yes-or-no question: do you understand this sentence? JPxG (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
You do not seem to have read my post You literally said multiple times that I'm nominating images for deletion because I think they are "amateur artwork." Maybe one image out of several happen to be in use, but so what? Just say so in the DR and the image will be kept. It's not a big deal. Your clearly here to discuss the broader complaint that I supposedly just have a personal issue with AI generated images as "amateur artwork" though. Otherwise there's no reason you would be messaging me on my talk page. Otherwise if your purely here to discuss a single image in a particular DR then please just do it there. This isn't the place for it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As one of the people who generally wants to delete AI art, I would say that use in use on a sister project normally trumps that as a reason for deletion. As far as I can think, the only reason I would ever argue otherwise if the only reason it was in use was that the uploader (or someone who appeared to be working with the uploader, e.g. continually going around behind them and using their images) had a pattern of making dubious additions of such images to the sister project, and even then I'd probably argue my case on the sister project first. (I can't speak at all to the particular case here, because there is no link.) - Jmabel ! talk02:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not even something I do that often anyway and I only do it in specific cases where I think its justified. So this whole thing is cope to begin with, but "fake" or "fictional" flags are often deleted as OOS regardless. Same goes for a lot of AI artwork. I didn't even neccessarily agree with it either, which is why rarely nominate in use images for deletion to begin with. But it is what it is. Sometimes its justified, sometimes not and it really depends on who closes it. That's exactly what DRs exist for though. I have absolutely no problem with being "wrong" 1 time out of a 100 if an image ends up being kept for whatever reason..--Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
You have written a long paragraph of text that did not answer the question in any way, so I assume the answer is "no" -- thanks for your time. JPxG (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG: Sorry, I didn't know you couldn't read multi-sentence paragraphs. My bad. I'll be sure to draw you picture next time. I'd say to see my comment below this for further clarification, but it's probably to many sentences for your reading compression level. Again, sorry, I'll try to stick to simple kindergarten level diagrams next time. Since that seems to be all your capable of reading. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Adamant1, you are free to disagree with existing policy, but as I have told you before, you really need to stop misrepresenting it.
COM:INUSE (in the subsection of Commons:Project scope that specifies the meaning of "realistically useful for an educational purpose") says:
A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. [...] It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope.
There is no exception there for noneducational amateur artwork or the like. And it looks like overrul[ing] other projects about what is in scope is pretty much what you are trying to do here.
@HaeB: (and also @JPxG: since this applies to your comments to) There is no exception there for noneducational amateur artwork or the like. There's several things here that both of you seem to be intentionally ignoring or just missed for some reason.
1. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality The guideline says a file is "not liable to be deleted simply because it may be of poor quality." Nowhere have I ever argued that AI generated should be deleted "Simply because it's poor quality." It's not the quality of AI artwork that I and others have a problem with, it's inherent lack of educational value. I've said as much about 500 times now and I'm pretty sick of repeating myself. The guideline is pretty clear that files have to be "realistically useful for an educational purpose" to be hosted on Commons even if they are being used on other projects. People like you are free to disagree, but as I've said many now there is no bright line to what does and doesn't have "realistic" educational value. Either one of you are free to get it or anything else related to this clarified on the Village Pump, but at least please stop trying to gaslight about by acting like this has anything to do with the quality of AI generated artwork.
2. COM:EV"any use that is not made in good faith does not count. For example, images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted." I, and I think a lot of others, would argue that most (if not all) AI-generated artwork that's used on other projects under the false pretense of having "educational value" is a "bad faithed usage." Again, both of you are free to disagree and I'd love to see that aspect of the guideline clarified. But there's no bright line there. What's being used in "good faith" or not is inherently vague and dependent on the situation.
As I've said multiple times and in as many discussions, there is no bright line on any of this. I encourage both of you or anyone else to get vague aspects of the guidelines that you think aren't clear enough or overly broad to be clarified on the village pump. Sitting here and misconstruing my position or taking guidelines out of context just to harass me into stopping DRs for in use files isn't the appropriate way to handle this though. Personally, I'd love to see a lot of this get clarified. That's on you guys to do as the ones who disagree with the guidelines current wording to do though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
On Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated images by David S. Soriano, where you want to delete 22 images which are in use on Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikibooks and non-English Wikipedia projects, you're arguing that we can combine COM:INUSE's A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose with
and COM:NOTUSED's A media file which is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above, falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons to get (in your words)
in use files are considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. Except in cases where a media file is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above.
I don't follow your thread of reasoning here, or why your reading means that an in-use picture could be deleted. Isn't "legitimately in use as discussed above" referring to situations where the file is in use on another project? --Belbury (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we're all getting to bogged down in arguing over the semantics of a guideline that isn't clear to begin with. So I have some examples from plenty of previous DRs where images that were in use got deleted anyway. It actually happens all the time. Especially with ai-generated artwork. You'll have to gice me a day or two to come up with them though. Its not the DRs are going anywhere in the meantime. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
While the DRs are open you're asking all of the pinged editors to justify why their uploads shouldn't be deleted, when in many cases they simply don't need to do that.
We're not into leisurely academic semantics here, five other editors are telling you that you are misapplying a long-standing policy, while you say that it's unclear to you. For the sake of the pinged editors, you should think harder and quicker about that. At the very least, consider retracting the in-use images from your recent nominations and having a single discussion about COM:INUSE somewhere, renominating the files if it still seems appropriate when the policy is clearer to you. Belbury (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the message. Sorry, but I'm not an admin. So it isn't my call to make. You might want to wait and see what @Omphalographer: has to say about it though. Reading through the discussion it looks like they might be open to the file being kept at least until your done using it for your project, if not indefinitely. I'm not really sure what the arguments on either side are or which side's opinion has more weight though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
my proposal is to reject your second request, so there is only one. You can delete also my comments in your request then.--Wortulo (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not sure what your referring to. I wasn't the one who opened the DR that your talking about. Nor have I even commented on it. So it's not "my request." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I get it now. I removed the file the DR. Sorry about that. Mistakes happen sometimes. Maybe just be clearer about it if it happens again. People can't fix things if they don't know what the problem is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Thx, all is clear. But I tried to explain from the beginning, that my file has already a DR ;-) Mass DR have problems in any Wikipedias ;-)--Wortulo (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
No problem. It's super late and I'm half asleep. So it's possible the misunderstanding was just on my side :) --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Your campaigns to delete images you don’t like that are covered by COM:INUSE, as seen at Category:Superstraight and recent AI-related nominations, are becoming outright disruptive. Your personal opinion that something isn’t educational is always trumped by a legitimate, good faith, live use of a file on a project. INUSE clearly state: “ If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope. ” If you continue this behavior you will be reported. Dronebogus (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.
Do not rearrange talk pages in a misleading way, as you did as part of this edit, where you moved this comment of yours away from the two responses to it, rendering them unintelligible by removing their reference point and creating the misleading impression that JPxG's statementThis is an absurdly disingenuous comment ... was referring to a comment by myself instead of yours (see also COM:TALK). Please stop such disruptive behavior. If you disagree with responses to one of your comments, you can respond yourself instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@HaeB: Sorry. I think both of you commented at the same time I moved it, because there was responses to it at the time when I was making the edit. I just didn't want the question to get in other, unrelated stuff. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Claiming that these two reponses were other, unrelated stuff and refactoring the section accordingly is exactly the problem. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@HaeB: Those comments where totally on topic, but again they were posted at the same time I moved the commented and I didn't see them. I moved it to place it under JPxG's other comment, which had nothing to do with the question. What part of that are you having such a hard time with? I obviously I can't "refactor" posts that didn't exist when I moved the comment to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I obviously I can't "refactor" posts that didn't exist when I moved the comment to begin with - Not sure I understand this comment. When you encounter an edit conflict (and you should have encountered one here unless we are dealing with a major software bug, considering that these posts in fact already existed when you made that change to the page), it is your full responsibility to resolve it in a way that does not result in disruption. Do not expect other users to clean it up for you afterwards, as it happened here. I appreciate your brief apology above, but not that it comes with what looks like an evasion of responsibility. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@HaeB: It didn't show there was an edit conflict on my end. There just wasn't any responses and the message posted after I wrote it and pushed send. Otherwise, I obviously wouldn't have made the edit to begin with. It's not my problem that there were no messages to begin with and it didn't warn me other people had made edits in the meantime though. Your clearly just looking for something to take issue with and be upset about. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Please, HaeB, assume some good faith here. The two of you have sobstantive disagreements. Fine. But let's not get dragged into discussing a possibly accidental bad refactoring edit. - Jmabel ! talk03:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Re possibly accidental, yes, above I had already acknowledged the possibility that this may not have been intentional (and also Adamant1's rather curt "Sorry").
I do appreciate the importance of AGF (and your weighing in at various other points of this of this mess - please continue to do so). In the same vein I would also like you to avoid creating the impression (intentional or not) that my note here was about fighting out s[u]bstantive disagreements (about DRs or such) by other means. Please try to see this from my perspective for a moment: I came to that active noticeboard discussion finding 1) my own comment rendered unintelligible, 2) casual readers being likely to receive the impression that I had made a an absurdly disingenuous comment in JPxG's eyes, and 3) myself spending a nontrivial chunk of my time figuring out what happened and repairing it for everyone. I think many other users would also find that kind of situation frustrating and consider it reasonable to call out the user responsible for it, asking them not have it happen again - regardless of other existing disagreements.
Adamant1: Operating under the assumption that this was an inadvertent mistake and that the normal edit conflict warning failed to appear due to a software issue, There just wasn't any responses [...] still contrasts with the fact that both responses are visible in the diff of your edit (where you made changes to this talk page section above and below them). I would recommend using the "Show changes" preview in such situations in the future, which might help avoiding disruptive mishaps of this kind.
@Jmabel: This is exactly what I was talking about in the ANU complaint. There's clearly no ability on their end to just drop things, move on, and not make it a needless personal spat. @HaeB: You want me to leave the room while you continue to beat a dude horse over nothing to @Jmabel: or can we call it good now so I can get on my life and have my talk page back? Because I'm super tired of this whole thing and it's beyond disruptive on your end at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kritzolina (A): I talked about it on my talk page and said I was willing to discuss it on the Village Pump. I was dog piled and reported to ANU before I had chance to though. So I don't really see how I wasn't being collaborative. It's not my fault that I wasn't given a chance to discuss it. I was more then willing to hold of on the DRs for a while well it was worked out to. Again, no one involved in this gave me the chance. Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
As I said, as long as you are blaming everyone else, I am not going to get into the discussion. Ping me with something else and we can discuss. Kritzolina (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kritzolina: I'm not blaming everyone. I'm just telling you that I was willing to discuss it on the village pump because your treating like I wasn't willing to. I also told Rhododendrites in the ANU that some of the files probably shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. I don't think blocking me for being uncollaborative when I wanted to ask about it on the village pump is really fair though. I should have been given a chance to resolve it on my before I was reported and blocked. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive. And I was totally willing to stop the behavior and resolve it through the normal resolution processes. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@HaeB: I asked you to drop it and stop leaving messages on my talk page. I'd appreciate it if you were respectful of that and didn't write messages on my talk page again. Just because I'm blocked doesn't mean you have free license to continue things on my talk page after I've told you to drop it and leave me alone. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment about block
@Kritzolina (A): I talked about it on my talk page and said I was willing to discuss it on the Village Pump. I was dog piled and reported to ANU before I had chance to though. So I don't really see how I wasn't being collaborative. It's not my fault that I wasn't given a chance to discuss it. I was more then willing to hold of on the DRs for a while well it was worked out to. Again, no one involved in this gave me the chance. It's super ridiculous to give me a two week block for being "uncollaborative" when I was one who suggested starting a discussion about it on the village pump to begin with. There's nothing uncollaborative about that. And I told @Rhododendrites: in the ANU complaint that a few of the images probably shouldn't have been nominating for deletion. So it's not like I'm denying there was an issue with some of the deletion requests and this just seems punitive for no reason. Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kritzolina: I know I didn't respond to your last message exactly how you wanted me to, but I have autism and it's not a crime to be a bad communicator. Realistically what makes you think that I would have continued nominating "in use" images for deletion after I told Rhododendrites I probably shouldn't have nominated some of the files for deletion to begin with and replied to you that about discussing it on the Village Pump. I've been on here since 2007 and have almost 400,000 edits. It's not like I'm a new user or something. I really don't get why you wouldn't have taken my word for both and assumed good faith. Or at least waited to see if I tried anything and blocked me if the nominations continued. Again, it's not a crime to be a bad communicator and I said the nominations shouldn't have been. So I really don't get what your issue was or how the block is at all justified. Like you said I was blaming everyone else when I literally said some of the files shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. I just don't get it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Unblock request
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: "I wasn't nominating "in use" files for deletion while the ANU complaint was going on. I said multiple times that I thought it should be discussed on the Village Pump and I had planned to ask a few question about how to apply INUSE there once the ANU complaint was resolved. I also told Rhododendrites in the complaint that I had been overly broad with a few of the DRs and that some of the files probably shouldn't have been deleted. So there was no on going issue that necessitated a block. As I had stopped what I was doing that caused the original problem and had no plan to continue it. Especially not until after I had asked about it on the village pump.
The claim that I was "blaming everyone else" is totally false. Again, I told Rhododendrites that some of the files shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. The same goes for the claim that I was being uncollaborative. Again, I stopped what I was doing and had planned ask for clarification about it on the Village Pump once the ANU complaint was concluded. This block serves absolutely no purpose what-so-ever except to act as a form of punishment for something that I said was a mistake and fully intended to not do again until it was properly resolved. So there's zero justification for this block. Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "The block is justified. Adamant1, you should just get off the wiki for sometime, go fishing or whatever, and then come back with a less combative mood. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
{{|ping|Yann}} Come on, that's just lazy. I think it's a valid unblock reason. You could have at least declined it based on the merits. I'm more then willing to take a few days off after I'm unblocked if your willing to give the unblock request an chance. Otherwise I'll just stop contributing. Your personal opinion that I need to go outside more isn't a valid reason to decline it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick note for the admin that will deal with this. Note my question to Adamant1 in the AN/U discussion here, where I asked them to stop all edits in the contentious area of contributions and their answer to this question here. Thank you. Kritzolina (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick note to the admin who deals with this, I probably would have been fine with taking a month off from nominating "in use" images for deletion. But I had already decided to not nominate any for deletion until the issues were resolved anyway and it just seemed overly punitive. Since I don't have issues with DRs more generally and there's time sensitive stuff I've been working on that requires it. Again though, I had no plans to nominate any "in use" files for deletion until things were resolved. It wouldn't have taken that long for the issue to be dealt with on the Village Pump either. So taking a month break from DRs was totally pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
INUSE
Thread closed now, but just to clarify with a reply: Repeatedly treating me like I have opinions or position that I don't really isn't helpful though.
Yet on the very line below: @Adamant1: You just nominated 14 in-use files in one deletion request alone!
Maybe you don't hold that INUSE doesn't apply to AI, as I might well be said to have attributed to you. Maybe you don't think this, or you don't think that you think this. But your actions were quite the opposite: you were bulk nominating INUSE items. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:@Andy Dingley: I'm more then willing to say that including some of those files in the DRs was a mistake. But people make them sometimes and I barely ever have anything to do with AI artwork. Let alone do I have a history of nominating "in use" files for deletion. That's the problem with people like you though. You could really care less about the facts or judging things like ANU complaints based on them. It's 100% just gaslighting and hyperbole all the way down. All anyone had to do was point out which files shouldn't have been included in the DRs without the bullshit from the start and I would have procedurally closed them myself, said it was wrong, and apologized. The people involved in this don't actually give a damn about the files, other person, fairness, assuming good faith, civility, or anything else though. It's just a means to an end to cry bully and get another user blocked. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Unblock request
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: "Can the block at least be reduced to a week please? There's a couple of ongoing projects I'm involved in on here that I was hopping to spend time on before I'm going to be busy next month and the block seriously cuts into that. I said some of the files shouldn't have been deleted and that I wasn't planning on nominating anymore "in use" files for deletion until the guideline is clarified. So there's no risk of damage to the project that the block is preventing. A week is more then enough time for me to reflect on things and touch grass or whatever. Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Your unblock requests show a combative and flippant attitude and serve to reinforce why the full duration is warranted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠05:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
@King of Hearts: I'm just really depressed because this whole thing screws up the plans I had for summer break and it's like 110 where I live for the next month. I said it's not an ongoing issue. You could at least meet me half and then block me again in a week if I continue to nominate "in use" files for deletion. I said I wasn't going to do it again though. So I don't know what you want. I'm allowed to be upset and hurt about this. That doesn't mean I'm going to continue the behavior that led to the block in a week though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Request for unblock
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: "I didn't handle the situation well. I should have been more open to people's feedback and not done a better job of checking the files before nominating them for deletion so that I didn't waste people's time with one's that were clearly being used in valid places. That's 100% my bad and I don't plan on doing it again. I'm not asking to be unblocked. I just want it to be reduced by a week so that I can have enough time to finish a couple of projects on here before the summer break is over. Blocks are not suppose to be punitive and a 2 week block does nothing to protect the project. Since again, I don't plan on doing the behavior again that led to the block. Adamant1 (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "TPA was revoked by Kritzolina below. Many users have expressed concern about Adamant1's attitude (in particular The Squirrel Conspiracy's comment provides a good insight into what's preventing unblock) and the block is expiring in 3 days anyway. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
Oppose as I said above. IMO you also should stop requesting unblock, or your talk page access may be revoked. Yann (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Sorry, I didn't see anything in the guidelines about how many times someone can appeal a block. So I thought it be OK since it sounded like the admin who rejected the last wanted me to be more specific about the issue and show more remorse. The guideline does say "Blocks based on disruptive behavior should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behavior will not resume." Which I think I've done in this block request if not adequately enough in the others. I'm not a pro at this by any means though. So my apologies if I did anything wrong. That's not my intention. I'd just like to get back to editing with enough time to finish things I'm working on before my breaks over. That's all. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about that. I'm not going to make another request if this one is rejected though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey Adamant1, you are indeed starting to say some of the things you should have said when the first report was made on AN/U. So this looks like you are learning, which is really good. And yet the most important thing seems to elude you. Your work is not more important than anyone elses. Your style of working, your style of discussing is costing others lots of time. Some people don't mind taking the time. I offered you discussions off-wiki, where it is just my time and yours and not the time of lots of other editors. With this unblock request you chose the most disruptive way of trying to make your point. That is what is unreasonable about it. Kritzolina (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kritzolina: Sorry. That wasn't my intent. I thought your offer to discuss it off wiki was contingent on me agreeing in the ANU complaint that I would take a month off from DRs. I assumed it was off the table since that didn't happen and you blocked me though. Otherwise I would have taken you up on it. Chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding, but the only other way to address this and take responsibility for my actions in the meantime is through appealing the block. The guidelines do give me that option.
I'm not doing it to "make a point" though. I'm simply following the instructions I was given as a way to deal with this. There is no point here except that I made a mistake, am sorry for it, and would like the block to be shortened so I can finish some things before school starts next month. That's it. And again, if I had of knowing the offer to discuss this off wiki was still on the table I would have taken you up on it. I did send you an email about this, which you never responded to. So...I do wonder why your taking issue with me not contacting you off wiki when I actually did and you just decided not to reply to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, hhmmm I don't have an email from you anywhere. My internets been having problems the last couple but I don't know why that would necessarily effect if I get emails or not. Maybe try resending it. I'm more then willing to discuss things with you through email. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kritzolina: I got your email and responded to it. Thanks for resending it. Sorry about the length, but I thought it was important to make sure we are clear on things since it seems like there's at least a couple of misconceptions about this whole thing on your end. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose You've done a lot of good work on the project and I sympathize with your desire to stem the tide of low-quality AI images, but it's two weeks. That's really not a lot of time. Reading over these unblocks, it feels like you're desperate to get back to editing and throwing arguments at the wall seeing what will stick, and that doesn't instill a lot of confidence. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I'm not sure what your talking about. I said in both appeals that I just want the time to be reduced to a week so I can have enough to time work on a specific thing that I promissed people I'd get done before schools starts. That's not "throwing things at the wall to see what sticks." I have a specific reason for why I'm requesting the time reduced and it doesn't involve not being blocked.
Being blocked for a week still keeps me from getting back to editing. Again, it just gives me enough time to finish something I was working on before I'm going to busy with school. That's it. Sure, two weeks isn't a lot of time, but a week is still plenty enough time for me to get the point and think about things. So it's just totally unnecessary and gets in the way of other work being done that had nothing to do with the issue. -Adamant1 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, Adamant1, maybe you should consider that your actions have meant other people had to waste their time on dealing with your misbehavior that could have been spent more productively. I personally think you were extremely lucky to only get two weeks— you violated policies (plural) repeatedly and tried to justify it, insulted and belittled other editors repeatedly, filed a frivolous and retaliatory behavioral report, and are now nagging admins to unblock you; all on top of a preexisting record of blocks, bans, and reports across Commons and English Wikipedia. With a less generous admin that kind of rap sheet would be more than enough to justify an indef. Dronebogus (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: With all due respect Dronebogus I was in the process of removing of the more questionable files from the DRs when I was blocked. The only reason any had to waste time on anything is because you decided to throw around a bunch of insults and get me blocked instead of just saying what particular files you thought where an issue. I obviously couldn't clean up or fix anything when all you did was repeatedly badger me about how I hate AI.
I can guarantee if you or anyone else involved in this would have just listed the files that at issue from the beginning instead of making it personal or at least given me a reasonable amount of time to resolve it on my own that it wouldn't even be an issue right now. The ANU complaint was only open for 20 hours, a large of which I was sleeping or busy and no one was willing to tell me what files they actually thought should be removed from the DRs. It was just a bunch of bitching about how I hate the technology. So I don't really know what people like you expect. I'm sorry I didn't wake up at 4 in the morning and cancel a dentist appoint to deal with it the second you thought I should have though. My bad. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: And just as a side to that, I really don't get where this vindictive, bad attitude about everything on your side comes from considering how badly you were treated on Wikipedia. I'd think your bad experiences there would have given you a little more compassion for other editors. Or at least given you more of a willingness to discuss things and let them fix problems before you try to get them blocked. Apparently that's not how it works though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I know how I was treated on Wikipedia, and half of that was my fault. I couldn’t keep my cool for 10 minutes, insisted on editing areas I had no competence in, and got topic banned. I see you going down the same path. I know it sounds mean, but you aren’t demonstrating basic competence in a particular area of editing (RfDs) and it’s not my, or anyone else’s, job to fix that. I don’t know why anyone has to spell out to you that you should not nominate in-use files for deletion without an extremely good reason you clearly explain, or why it’s unreasonable to get annoyed by having to do just that. Dronebogus (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm glad you take responsibility for how you acted on Wikipedia, but the fact is that all you did was badger me about I AI artwork and didn't give me a chance to resolve the problem on my own before reporting me to ANU. I certainly didn't have a chance to fix anything after that. It's 100% fair to say that I nominated some images for deletion that shouldn't have been included in the DRs. I said as much in the last comment I made before I was blocked. 99% of the DRs I'm involved in have absolutely no issue what-so-ever though and people make mistakes sometimes.
There's no reason you couldn't have at least pointed out what files you thought were wrong and gave me time to fix them instead of repeatedly going off about how I just hate AI artwork. It seems people on your side of this want it both ways where all you have to do is brow beat the shit out of me with vague accusations of hating AI artwork and then I'm suppose to somehow magically remove random files from deletion requests or close them while I'm blocked. I'm not saying it's you or anyone else to fix. I'm saying you didn't give me a chance to fix my own issue! I'm not going to sit here and brow beat myself about how much I suck as an editor or nod my head agreement that I hate AI artwork either. Sorry, but that doesn't fix anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: BTW I'm not sure what the success rate for DRs is on Commons, but from what I remember the average for AfDs on Wikipedia is like 61 percent. There's no reason to think it would be any higher here either. So most people who are at all active in DRs is probably going to have a relatively low success rate at it. That's just how it's works. I've actually spent plenty of time reviewing the outcomes of DRs that I started after they are closed and the images are deleted WAY more then not. So your claim that I lack basic competence in the area is patently false. If anything I'm more successful at it then most people on here. Although I do make mistakes now and then. But everyone does and I'm certainly not in the minority there. So your expecting a level of perfection that just doesn't exist on and that I don't even think your following yourself. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Warning, if you keep blaming other editors for the consequences of your own actions, you may lose editing rights to your talk page as well. Kritzolina (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we've exchanged what, like 6 emails at this point and I've taken responsibility for my actions in every single one of them. Plus I've said here and in the ANU multiple times that I shouldn't have nominated some of the images for deletion. So I don't really know what your talking about. It's pretty obvious by your attitude in the emails that your hell bent on treating me like I'm just lying and wasn't planning on dealing with things. That's fine, but I've told you repeatedly that it was my fault and that I was in process of fixing it when you blocked me. So I really don't get the denial or rude attitude about it on your end of this. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
That is exactly what I mean with blaming other for the consequences of your own behaviour. You called Dronebogus vindictive and having a bad attitude, you call me hell bent on treating you badly. I am putting a stop to this kind of behaviour now and removing your talk page editing rights. Kritzolina (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Incomprehensible categorisation of my photographs
Hello, I have noticed that you have assigned the Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards to some of my photographs here. However, these photos are not postcards, but normal photographs. Since I could not find any explanation for this categorisation and cannot understand it, especially as it seems arbitrary to me, I have reverted all affected changes. If you have any questions about my photographs or need clarification, please contact me directly before making incomprehensible changes. Thanks and regards --Anil Ö. (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Аныл Озташ: Adamant1 is currently blocked, and does not even have access to this talk page, so he is not likely to reply.
I can see what happened, though: an automated or semi-automated task got confused by your mention of "postcards" in your custom license template, so it got placed in this category that he intended as a maintenance category for review. He was blocked (for unrelated reasons) before he had a chance to clean it up. - Jmabel ! talk02:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel, thank you for the explanation. I had received an email from Adamant1, but there was no reference to the matter in this regard. At least now I know. --Anil Ö. (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Trougnouf: What did I say in the DR and how many times did you continue responding to me after that? "I said I'm fine leaving it to whomever closes this. So I'd appreciate it if we just left it there." You then replied to me 3 times after that, 4 if you count the ANU complaint. And I'm the one not being civil or respectful. Right. You should really stop lying and move on like I told you to. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Please don't ...
Things like this are out of scope. Creator pages are not templates, they are full formed pages. If a person is a legitimate creator, they are typically useful, and deleting them is typically not useful. — billinghurstsDrewth12:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: We have almost zero chance of hosting any media created by the person because their works are copyrighted. I forget where I read it, but I was under the impression that it's pointless to have a creator template for someone if we aren't going to have any files they created to use the template on in the first place. Or am I wrong about that? In the slightest it just seems totally pointless if not encouraging COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
BTW, one of the issues with keeping creator templates for people where we have almost zero chance of hosting works created by them because of issues with copyright is that we end up with empty categories like Category:Ernest Albert (Belgian painter). Which, I assume, can't be deleted because of the creator templates. I'd like a solution to that if your going to keep the creator templates. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Commons:Creator pretty clearly says "Creator pages are templates meant to be transcluded into files." So if there's no files for the creator template to be translcluded into because the person's works are copyrighted there's no point in having the creator template. On top of that Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template clearly has T2 as a speedy deletion speedy deletion criteria, ergo "Unused templates (except maintenance/project templates that are substituted), are subjected to speedy deletion."
From what I understand creator templates aren't "maintenance/project templates that are substituted." So I really don't really see what issue is here. The policies literally say unused templates are subject to speedy deletion and that the purpose of creator templates is to "to be transcluded into files." How about you tell me what you disagree with or think is wrong about that instead of just baselessly treating me like what I'm doing is false and/or doesn't follow policy? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
BTW, just to add to that Commons:Creator#Who should have a creator page also states "Any known creator of works hosted on Commons" and "Any known historic creator whose works on Commons are in the public domain due to copyright expiration" should have creator templates. There's also this line below that under Commons:Creator#Who should not have a creator page "People who are not, and are unlikely to ever be, creators of works hosted on Commons." Which I assume would apply to people who's works aren't likely to be hosted here because they are copyrighted for the next couple of decades or more. Again though, your free to tell me what you think is wrong about any of that. Otherwise I don't think there's an issue here. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
You shouldn't revert comments on ANU then as its a form of vandalism. If you do get blocked it will probably only be for a few days anyway, but reverting comments doesn't help. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Willi Thornholz in Category:Photographers in the inventory of the Stadtarchiv Kiel
Thank you very much for the work of publishers and photographs and their photographs and postcards of Kiel. Photos by Willi Thonholtz in the inventory of the Kiel City Archiv. That is why I think that Willi Thornholz should be classified not only in Category:Photographers from Kiel, but also in the Category:Photographers in the inventory of the Stadtarchiv Kiel. Some photographers from Kiel can not in the inventory of the Kiel City Archives and vice versa: many photographers in the inventory are not photographers from Kiel. Thank you! RStehn (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@RStehn: Two things. 1. We don't have any other "photographs in the inventory of" categories and there's already a Wikidata item "has works in the collection of" for that, which I've been adding to the photographers. So it's not how we categorize photographers to begin with. Nor is it at all necessary. 2. The "photographers" aren't in the "inventory of the Stadtarchiv Kiel" Their photographs are and the files are already in a category for the Stadtarchiv Kiel but it also says the files are in the collection in the descriptions. Again, making Category:Photographers in the inventory of the Stadtarchiv Kiel pointlessly redundant and just bad English on top of it. What you can do is create categories called "photographs by Willi Thornholz in the Stadtarchiv Kiel." As I'm pretty sure we already have similar categories and it would actually be named correctly in that case. Although the word "inventory" should be left out of it since it's just redundant. As there aren't "photographs in the Stadtarchiv Kiel" that aren't also in "the inventory of the "Stadtarchiv Kiel." So there's zero reason to have the extra word.
Anyway, that would allow for photographs by the person that are in the Stadtarchiv Kiel to be categorized that way without connecting the whole category for the photographer to the Stadtarchiv Kiel when we might have images of by them from a different source. Which is yet another reason the category doesn't make any sense and isn't helpful. If we only have 2 photographs by the person that are currently in the Stadtarchiv Kiel and other ones from different sources then it doesn't make sense to put their category in something having to do with the Stadtarchiv Kiel. I'll probably do that at some point myself if you don't, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't revert me in the meantime because the category should be gotten rid of either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@RZuo: I'm pretty sure I've said it several times now but it's a temporary category because a template attached to the file has the word "postcard" in it. I was actually about to crop the image and then remove the category after that when you reverted me. Just because you think it's miscategorized doesn't mean it is and I'd appreciate if you didn't treat me like I don't know what I'm doing or don't have a reason for doing it. There's temporary categories all the place on here but I seem to be the only one getting concerned trolled over them for some reason. Maybe drop it and give me a chance to finish what I'm doing before making an out of it next time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@RZuo: There was a white border around the yellow frame. Which is what I cropped out. The yellow frame is part of the original image though, which we usually don't remove per the template and guidelines. If your not satisfied with it that's on you. There's no reason you can't cropped it more yourself but it has nothing to do with me beyond that. So stop with the tantrum throwing. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Category:Images_misdescribed_as_postcards 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!
What exactly is the issue you are trying to fix here? It seems to me that there's a reasonable argument for having this hierarchy and that History of and Historical images of isn't duplicate categories. I'm not particularly attached to either way of categorising files, but it seems to be a rather large and disruptive unilateral change, and I'm unable to find any sort of discussion on the topic. TommyG (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@TommyG: it seems to be a rather large and disruptive unilateral change See Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. Admittedly the discussion is from 2019, but I don't see why it wouldn't still be valid. Although it seems that they never got rid of them completely but the disruptive thing is that they still exist and people have continued to create them since then despite the clear consensus about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Minor fact correction, but the CfD was opened in 2019 and was closed last year. Regardless, there's clearly a consensus that "historical images" is a bad naming scheme. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Not ok! You can improve situations – fine. But currently, you are making things much worse. Putting everything in one category is anything but helpful, not improving the situation. You can create new categories by year and then start moving. But like this, you are only creating a big mess!
And: An old image isn't telling anything about the history. You are mixing up categorization by production date and categorization by topic! Albinfo (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Albinfo: I didn't even participate in the original CfD and it's not my issue. If you think the images are better categorized by year then be my guest and categorize them that way. That has nothing to do with if "historical images" categories should exit or not and there's clearly a consensus that they shouldn't. Be my guest and take it up on the Village Pump though if you think the CfD should be ignored. I doubt anyone will side with you but whatever. Have fun with that. Stop reverting me in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
There was a consensus that "by the year" categories are better than just "historical images". That's a difference to putting everything in a wrong category! Albinfo (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The consensus was "Phase out and eventually delete", which is what I'm doing. Your free to put the images in "by year" categories but you could have literally just done it by now instead of complaining to me about it and they aren't mutually exclusive. Nothing in the CfD said that every image in a "historical images" category has to be put in one "by year." Be my guest and do it though. Again, you could have literally just done that instead of wasting both our going off about it and trying to edit war me. Like I give a crap. Stop complaining and just do it!!! --Adamant1 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
"eventually delete" doesn't mean that you need to delete, especially when the situation afertwards is much worse as before with moving endless pictures in worse or wrong categories. And yes I complain to you because you made the situation worse as before. Albinfo (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Albinfo: The CfD was closed more then a year ago. I think that's plenty of time for the categories to "eventually" be deleted now. And you can go off about how the category is wrong, but the categories your talking about were sub-categories of "history of" so it just follows that it would be appropriate to put them in "history" categories. Otherwise they shouldn't have been in ones for "historical images" to begin with. You can't just create a sub-category of "history" with the word "image" and then say that the images can't be in a category for history. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Literally all you doing is adding an arbitrary word at the end of "history" that has to do with the file format and then using it as an excuse to throw a tantrum and edit war me over it. "Well uhhh obviously 'history' is wrong because the other category was called 'historical JPEGs!!!!" Right. I swear to god people on here just love to whine about nothing for some reason. Get over it and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Joachim Köhler: I don't think I've edited your user page. So what are you talking about and/or what does this have to do with? Otherwise sure, I'll keep not doing something I wasn't doing to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sure. But the usage in a template caused it to be added to thousands of files that were screwing with a search and there's no specific reason the template had to say "postcard." Is there a rule about what exactly a template has to say or one against people editing them just because they were created by another user? I was under the impression users don't own the content they upload or create on here. Like if I were to create a licensing template involving a list of random words that have nothing to do with anything for no other reason then I can would that be totally OK and un-editable by anyone else? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
You could have discussed it with him but this was not "random", it was quite to the point. And, yes, as long as you are an active contributor (or even a past contributor, and not blocked) you do more or less "own" what is in your user space, as long as it doesn't outright violate policy (e.g. you don't get to make personal attacks there, or violate copyrights). This is why people are free to delete things from their own user talk page, even to the point of somewhat obscuring the fact that they've had a lot of warnings. For example, it would not be anyone else's prerogative to change which picture of a particular person I chose for User:Jmabel/People, or to change one of the descriptions there. - Jmabel ! talk02:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
And I understand how this was inconvenient for you, but it isn't as if you had been given mandate and permission to run roughshod over other user's pages to achieve your goal. - Jmabel ! talk02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sure, I could have discussed it with him. Someone else modified their template to remove the word and I was under pressure to get rid of the maintenance templates at the time. So I didn't think it would matter that much since it was a fairly superficial change. It's not that it was an "inconvenience." It literally got in the way of curating images. So don't make this about my feelings.
Regardless, I don't consider templates that are used on thousands of files to be sacred cows. Nor are they IMO akin to something like a persons talk page, which I wouldn't modify since they don't effect other places on the project outside of the user space. At least IMO any time someone does something that has broad consequences that effect other people's ability to contribute to the project then it's fair game. Of course there's a balance there. I wouldn't have modified the template to get rid of a random word that had no effect on anything. If I ever create a template that has an impact on thousands of pages and fucks with other people's ability to do their work be my guest and change it. I'm not that much of a self-entitled control freak. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Historical images
What is this new thing of deleting the "Historical images" categories? Is there a discusssion about it? Thank you Sailko (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Joachim Köhler: I don't think I've edited your user page. So what are you talking about and/or what does this have to do with? Otherwise sure, I'll keep not doing something I wasn't doing to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sure. But the usage in a template caused it to be added to thousands of files that were screwing with a search and there's no specific reason the template had to say "postcard." Is there a rule about what exactly a template has to say or one against people editing them just because they were created by another user? I was under the impression users don't own the content they upload or create on here. Like if I were to create a licensing template involving a list of random words that have nothing to do with anything for no other reason then I can would that be totally OK and un-editable by anyone else? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
You could have discussed it with him but this was not "random", it was quite to the point. And, yes, as long as you are an active contributor (or even a past contributor, and not blocked) you do more or less "own" what is in your user space, as long as it doesn't outright violate policy (e.g. you don't get to make personal attacks there, or violate copyrights). This is why people are free to delete things from their own user talk page, even to the point of somewhat obscuring the fact that they've had a lot of warnings. For example, it would not be anyone else's prerogative to change which picture of a particular person I chose for User:Jmabel/People, or to change one of the descriptions there. - Jmabel ! talk02:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
And I understand how this was inconvenient for you, but it isn't as if you had been given mandate and permission to run roughshod over other user's pages to achieve your goal. - Jmabel ! talk02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sure, I could have discussed it with him. Someone else modified their template to remove the word and I was under pressure to get rid of the maintenance templates at the time. So I didn't think it would matter that much since it was a fairly superficial change. It's not that it was an "inconvenience." It literally got in the way of curating images. So don't make this about my feelings.
Regardless, I don't consider templates that are used on thousands of files to be sacred cows. Nor are they IMO akin to something like a persons talk page, which I wouldn't modify since they don't effect other places on the project outside of the user space. At least IMO any time someone does something that has broad consequences that effect other people's ability to contribute to the project then it's fair game. Of course there's a balance there. I wouldn't have modified the template to get rid of a random word that had no effect on anything. If I ever create a template that has an impact on thousands of pages and fucks with other people's ability to do their work be my guest and change it. I'm not that much of a self-entitled control freak. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Historical images
What is this new thing of deleting the "Historical images" categories? Is there a discusssion about it? Thank you Sailko (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Please could you kindly explain to me why the above category has been made redundant? The above category was removed from Category:Studios of T & J Holroyd, photographers, and replaced with "Photographic studios", which makes no sense, because that building has not been a photographic studio since the 19th century. It was recently sold for several million pounds, and is not likely to be a photographic studio again. I believe it is now either a residence or offices. Storye book (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Storye book: Two things. First of all Photographic studios aren't buildings. Although they can be in them sometimes, but a lot of times they are just in a room or other part of the building. So having them attached to a category like "Buildings by former function" makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Secondly, there is no other category for "former" things that I could find outside of "Buildings by former function and there is no other parent category to put Category:Former photographic studios in since Category:Former doesn't seem to be a thing. Apparently there's Category:Formers but it has no relation to buildings, businesses, photographic studios, or anything related to this. So "former" is clearly ambiguous and not a thing on here outside of the whole "buildings by former function" thing. That's not even to mention that buildings don't have "functions" to begin with either.
Regardless, Category:Former photographic studios is clearly nonsensical. It's also debatable that categories for defunct businesses are useful or worth having in the first place. That kind of information should really just be stored on Wikidata's side. Otherwise we would have to be constantly recategorizing things based on if a particular business is open or not at the time. In regards to photographic studios in particular a better way to categorize them is probably by decade or year of opening or something like that. If not just store it on Wikidata. Since I don't think the specific year a photographic studio closed is really a useful way to categorize them. Anyway, that's why I nominated Category:Former photographic studios for speedy deletion. It's clearly ambiguous at best, totally pointless and goes against the guidelines at worst. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Shops aren't generally buildings either, and some hotels or restaurants or even post offices aren't, but that is where we categorize them. I don't see why this should be any different. When dealing with historic buildings, we are often interested in categorizing under their various historical uses, but it seems to me to make sense to indicate former uses as being former, not current, when we know that.
@Jmabel: I'm aware of us doing that with shops. There was only a couple of sub-categories and files in it to begin with and you could argue the comparable category for shops probably shouldn't exist either since it doesn't make sense either. If you look at a lot of the sub-categories in Category:Former commerce buildings most of them make snese. For instance the cateogry for former bank buildings. Obviously there's former and current bank buildings. That doesn't mean every single thing even slightly related to commerce deserve a "former building" category though. Its just an easy and lazy way to categories closed businesses. One that clearly isn't accurate in a lot of instances. In general I think its important keep categories for retail buildings mostly seperate from the ones for whatever business was occupying them at any given time or just muddying the waters to much. Like there's two story mixed used building where I live. It has housing on the second floor and there was a skate shop on the bottom floor for a lot of years which went out of business. Now its a place that sells wedding supplies or something. Anyway, neither "former skate shop buildings" or "weeding supply buildings" makes sense there. Does that mean there aren't former church buildings or that I care if someone creates a "former church buildings" catrgory. No of course not. You can't just do it every kind of business. No one considers a wedding planner to be a "wedding planning building." Its just nonsensical. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Dmitry Medvedev by day
This has been going for the same amount of time as the Putin category discussion. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion? I am one of the participant in this discussion and there are enough votes to delete this category as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
@WikiCleanerMan: Yeah, I had planned to deal with it after I'm finished deleting the by day categories for Putin. I don't see why there shouldn't be the same outcome there as with the other CfDs for similar categories though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: I left you a message on your talk page about it. Your the one doing the vandalism here if anyone is. Again, just to repeat what I said on your talk page the categories your restoring are nonsensical and go against the guidelines. The same goes for "category:categories of" and the various categories you created for for none exiting WikiProjects. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever to have categories for WikiProject's that don't exist. So I'd appreciate if you knocked it off and stopped reverting me. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Your edits are nonsensical. You're deleting maintenance categories, for what reason? I was organizing everything related to architecture for years, and you think you'll destroy it over one night? --Orijentolog (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: Its not me that created hundreds of categories for non-exiting WikiProjects. You shoulf have thought about if creating them followed the guidelines before you did it. Although there might be a few that are woeth keeping for whatever reason, but dealing with it reverting over 400 times in a couple minutes of, including more then 100 times after I reported you, isn't an appropriate way to resolve the issue. You should discussed it on your talk page when I sent you the message instead of just reverting it and turning the whole thing into a giant edit war. Your just wasting everyone's time including your own since I can almost gurantee if I started a CfD that there would be a consensus to delete the categories. I'm more then willing to do that after the complaint is worked out though and/or if you refuse to get the point about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Most of these categories are not intended for existing WikiProjects, but for separating huge WikiProject Iran, by city. They mostly serve as maintenance categories. Categories named as Categories of City are containing categories named as Categories of City by something, as is the case with countries. To delete them is a ridiculous idea. If there is some consensus for mass changes, you could inform me and I would do myself because I was very, very careful to keep all cities the same. Thanks to you, we still have mess now, even after my mass reverts. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: Calling naming the categories "WikiProject whatever" makes it seem like they are categories for actual WikiProjects and there's nothing to indicate that they are maintaince categories. I can understand the behind the categories, but the way you went about it is clearly wrong. Its questionable there needs to be a maintance category for every single location Iran anyway. Most or all of them only a couple of subcatrgories if even and the whole thing is circular and doesn't make sense anyway. Something like that should be a single page or something as part of the main WikiProject. Check out how Wikiprojects on here do it. For instance Wikiprojects Postcards. There's a main page with tasks and what not and then a "Wikiproject Postcards" maintance category with a few sub-categories for specific things, but there isn't hundreds of different categories for non-exiting Wikiprojects or subjects related to postcards. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
If that's the issue, I'll put on every single category that it's a part of WikiProject Iran. When I was separating it, I found it as a good idea because in future I also plan to open a parent category for provinces, and Persian Wikipedia has Wikiprojects for at least three of them. So separating by cities and provinces is actually very useful idea, not the similar case like postcards. Keeping a single maintaince category also improve city-cats aesthetically: take a look for example Tehran: it has ten primary categories and WikiProject as a maintaince category. ALL other Iranian cities, hundreds of them, follow the same scheme. Otherwise, several of those technical categories would mix in major category with primary ones, and it would look messy. If there is a consensus for other idea regarding the maintenance categories, no problem, I would fix it. Regarding Categories of City, there is indeed an issue with other countries because some users are using it for nonsensical things. For example, Categories of Taipei in Taiwan has 650 categories, virtually every single category with "Taipei" in the title. That should be changed, not Iranian categories which perfectly follow the cat-tree. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I gather that Orijentolog has given up and gone away, which is too bad, but: (1) maintenance categories shouldn't really be of much concern to anyone other than the person or people who is using them (2) conversely, if you find yourself making more that a dozen or two maintenance categories in a short period of time, and it's not part of some well-organized group project, then you are probably doing it wrong. - Jmabel ! talk10:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I added a dozen more images to Category:Joseph John Schmidt III. And, because it was no longer empty, I reverted the speedy deletion request you made, because it was empty.
All but one of the images date back to 2016. It seems that, in 2016, maybe because he was so muscle-bound, the Navy sent him to do a LOT of public outreach.
@Geo Swan: That's fine. Thanks for adding more images of him to the category. Would it possible for you to create a Wikidata item for him to since ther only requirement for one is a Commons category having to do with the person? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a stupid mistake with Cat-a-lot. I assume a bot would have dealt with it eventually anyway, but I removed the category. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
"published in 1966 and don't have the artist name on them"
Hello Adamant1,
that only applies for works published before 1966 (not in 1966). And even then, they're still protected in Germany for 70 years. Regards --Rosenzweigτ08:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Right now everyone at the user problems board is done listening to excuses. Stop making them. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re 100% right and they’re 150% wrong, you need to disengage. I speak from experience. You are just giving people more reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: You need to stop threatening me. I'm not making excuses. I'm simply asking to provide diffs for the things your excusing me of which your own standard Dronebogus! --Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: As a side to that I'd appreciate it if you didn't message me on my talk page again. Otherwise I'll report you for harassment. Really, I'm tempted to anyway. Especially in light of the frankly disgusting and psychic way treating me over this. I'm more then willing to hold off on it for now if you chill out and don't message me here again though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi, You are now involved in 3 different ANU reports with at least 5 different users. You need to get a step back, or you will certainly be blocked. Yann (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi, why do you want to delete the Category:Rosa ‘Duarte de Oliveira? It is then no longer visible who the breeder was, that it belongs to the Rosa Noisette Group, and so on! Wilrooij (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
But if Rosa ‘Duarte de Oliveira is deleted, this rose will unfortunately no longer appear in the Gallery pages of roses. That would be a pity. Wilrooij (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Wilrooij: The guideline was recently changed to say that one image galleries qualify for speedy deletion. I could care less either way, but at least with roses there's so many of them that it's screwing with search results and causing other issues. Plus it kind of goes against the point galleries to begin with. Plus it's already being used in the gallery for Rosa cultivars D and Rosa Noisette Group anyway. So I don't really see the point in keeping it since people can already see the image in other galleries that have more then one image. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: That's to bad as it just kind of sets me up for instances where people can treat me however they want to without recourse. Per my comment there I'm just not going to participate anymore. I'm not here to be endlessly badgered, insulted, or edit warred by other users without a way to deal with it. Sorry. I'm fully capable of not participating in ANU as much on my own without being topic banned. You could have at least of at least given me a chance to prove it on my own before topic banning me. There's zero point in doing this if someone can topic banned or blocked at a request of a couple of people who they have had essentially nothing to do with outside of the ANU complaint and are clearly axe grinding anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at COM:HD#Allentown discussion resumed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
Done ;) Sintegrity (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
the "old postcard" look
"Postcard Perfection".
Another postcard from Rottingdean!.jpg)
.jpg)
Ok , thanks for the explanation. TommyG (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Naarden_-_20527961_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_av_Arne_Scheel.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=906085654){kind=link}
_av_Arne_Scheel.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=851369262){kind=link}
