User talk:Adamant1

---

COM:AN/U

---

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

Trougnouf (talk) 23:17, 18 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.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 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)

Commons:Creator and Commons:Deletion policy. Follow the policy, please don't falsely apply for speedy deletion. It is the admins who cop it in the neck for speedy deleting something that shouldn't be, so I am here asking.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 20 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)

Hello

I only upload videos or photos, sorry. I don't want to be blocked because of that. I have also apologized for the copyright I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 06:39, 27 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)

Thanks for the answer. By the way: see de:Archiv and de:Stadtarchiv Kiel RStehn (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Foto_ved_Sturlason_(1940)_av_Arne_Scheel.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=906085654 2nd time. can you plz stop miscategorising files? RZuo (talk) 07:00, 3 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: Stop being a control freak. I removed the template because I cropped the image. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop now

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Foto_ved_Sturlason_(1940)_av_Arne_Scheel.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=851369262

ask User:Bensin whether s/he is satisfied with your "crop". RZuo (talk) 09:52, 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

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!

RZuo (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Historical images of XXX

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)

Ok , thanks for the explanation. TommyG (talk) 10:16, 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)