User talk:Adamant1

Hi, You can tag abuse of COM:WEBHOST as speedy deletion, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Major KB.jpg, and also warn the uploader ([1]). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware that was an option. I'll try to do it that way in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adamant1, I hereby ask you not to make any changes to my user page or its subpages. Many thanks and best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(talk page stalker) presumably https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joachim_K%C3%B6hler/Photo_credit_box1&diff=prev&oldid=906312715. I understand the project you were up to, but this does not look like an appropriate edit. People are permitted to use the word "postcard". - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 ! talk 02:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ! talk 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Sailko: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. I was just telling someone else that there should have been an announcement about it on the Village Pump or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is somehow broken. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Adamant1 (15 August 2024). reversals.

@Enhancing999: Super petty. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Storye book (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't feel a strong stake in this, but I also don't think there is a broad consensus against it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Or you'll get reported. --Orijentolog (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 ! talk 10:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You tagged Category:Lutsk on April 8 for deletion, but this category is not empty. Could you please either, removed the files inside, or removed the deletion template? See also Category:Other speedy deletions. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I thought it was empty. I just reverted the edit for now. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to have closed some CfDs but didn't actually remove the tag, per Category:CfD 2017-05. Would you mind clearing it up? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: Sure. Thanks for letting me know about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sanandros @User:Themightyquill @User:Estopedist1 Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Could be because of that story.--Sanandros (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works to. @Geo Swan: Never mind. I just created one. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Women with opened mouths you say "resolved by consensus" but don't say what the consensus is; it's certainly not obvious to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I wrote a closing note. Apparently it didn't display because there was a missing | symbol though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that; part of that should have gone in "actions". - Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added a note about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that, in your attempt to empty Category:Sportspeople with opened mouths, you populated Category:Sports people? Most of the files are mine and of the few that aren't, every single one is already subcategorized in Category:Sportspeople. You can just removed the red-linked category. ✗plicit 06:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 --Rosenzweig τ 08:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: OK, thanks. The specific years and laws always throw me off lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		For remaining civil even when dealing with a frustrating situation! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 05:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]