User talk:Adamant1

Keys in raileay categories

Hello, your deleting keys makes a mess in the main categories as everything is collecte under R. This is really not helpful. If you think, there are better keys and better category names, please proopse them. But deleting keys isn't helpful at all. Thank you Gürbetaler (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gürbetaler: I left you a message on your talk page about it. It's not my job to propose something when your the one that wants to use keys to begin with. Regardless, they only work if it's consistent and they are all over the place in this case. So it doesn't make sense to organize the subcats that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport is the general term used in most categories. Older categories still lhave "railway" but this is only to be used in specific cases. All this has een discussed largely. Keys help to distinguish within rail transport. Gürbetaler (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gürbetaler: I get the general point in keys. Obviously keys help distinguish things. That's not my issue. I explained things better on your talk page. I'd appreciate it if you responded there and skipped trying to tell me how keys work. I'm not having the discussion in multiple places or talking about why keys exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User natifications

Please notify users about problems with their files. Help:Gadget-UserMessages is very helpful for this purpose. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EugeneZelenko: I usually do. Its possible I forgot once though. Are you talking about speedy deletions or something else? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through Category:Advertisements for speedy deletion. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EugeneZelenko: Hhmm, I thought a bot automatically notifies uploaders with speedy deletions or is that not a thing? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently AntiCompositeBot only notifies people for certain types of speedy deletions and not others. Dumb. I'll be sure to keep that in mind. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tam Quan in secular architecture.jpg

Hello @Adamant1,

I was wondering why you flagged this upload as having no evidence of permission when the file in question is extracted from another file that is a pretty obvious case of self-promotion. I just cropped the image to where it's encyclopedically useful.

Regards, TansoShoshen (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TansoShoshen: It's pretty unlikely the original image was taken by the uploader. You can't just get around the lack of a valid license or source by cropping the image. Obviously we would still need permission from the original photographer to host any derivatives of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 Considering the fact that Tineye has 0 hits for that particular image, and the user has many pictures uploaded of the school in question, I was pretty confident that this was an own work. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TansoShoshen: There wouldn't be a reason for the image image to be on Tineye when it's clearly an employee of the organization in question who is uploading images for promotional purposes. That doesn't mean they took the photograph or own the copyright to it though. Random employees of organizations uploading things to Commons for promotional purposes usually don't. Someone in PR says "here's a photograph. Upload it to the internet," which the employees does. That doesn't mean either one of them know or care about how copyright works. That's why I gave them 7 days to confirm they own the copyright though. It's a pretty low bar. I could have just nominated it for speedy deletion if I wanted to. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think that, if anything, Adamant1 is being generous to the uploader here. That looks like a postcard. I'd consider the claim of "own work" very unlikely. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these kind of edits...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2022-08-21_European_Championships_2022_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_4_x_100_Metres_by_Sandro_Halank%E2%80%93041.jpg&diff=923209152&oldid=897449027 ... since they don't make sense. Xgeorg (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xgeorg: See Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Men with opened mouths. Maybe take it up with the users who voted to delete categories for images of men with open mouths. It's not my problem that other people don't think the categories should exist though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But replacing these with a very general category like Sportspeople if they already have specific cats doe not make sense. Xgeorg (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xgeorg: Oh, I assume you mean because of over categorization. You should have said so. That can happen sometimes. It's certainly not something I do regularly or is it intentional when I do. Anyway, I just checked and there's currently 85 files in Category:Sportspeople that are already in more specifically categories. It's pretty trivial to fix that using User:Waggers/degrandparent. I'll do it myself later today when I have the time if you aren't willing to. Maybe do me a favor though. Cut the needlessly forward tone next time and just say what the issue is. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not a natural speaker. Was not intending to be offensive. Sorry for that. Xgeorg (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xgeorg: No worries. I appreciate that you let me know about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011

Hi, This is the software. Yann (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember

User_talk:Adamant1/Archive_1#Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AI-generated_furry Trade (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Thanks for the reminder. I'll add the category. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obama Milk (4080502801).jpg

File:Obama Milk (4080502801).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anybody sticker on Wolfgang Puck (2840909470).jpg

File:Anybody sticker on Wolfgang Puck (2840909470).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Go Back to Alaska Sarah Palin, 2008 - Larry Fulton Postcard (5335891606).jpg

File:Go Back to Alaska Sarah Palin, 2008 - Larry Fulton Postcard (5335891606).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Headlock0225 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files from Steve Shook Flickr stream

May I assume you are planning to look at these for copyvios? At a quick glance, I see impossible license claims. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Yeah I'm in the process of going through them and some other postcards that I uploaded a few days ago. It will probably take a week or two to finish but they should be dealt with eventually. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Set of New Years Postcards 1 3 (50729572252).jpg

File:A Set of New Years Postcards 1 3 (50729572252).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Krd 05:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BR75625 st david s the cathedral and bishop s palace wales (50635835201).jpg

File:BR75625 st david s the cathedral and bishop s palace wales (50635835201).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Krd 05:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ Simple English ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

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.

Calling someone a "lazy ass slack" is not OK, not to mention other comments of yours in this discussion. --Yann (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I could have been a little nicer about it but when an administrator closes a DR with 10 images where most of them are clearly copyrighted just because a couple of them aren't it comes off as laziness. I'm a volunteer just like everyone else. I don't have a bunch of time to refile a DRs just because an admin can't be bothered to exclude a couple images from a deletion request if they turn out not to be copyrighted. That's what happens in literally every other situation! Spare the warnings about my attitude. I can't sneeze on here without you getting up my ass about it for some reason. Are you seriously that much of a authoritarian? I get criticized none stop by people on here and you won't say jack shit about it but then you have zero problem warning or blocking me the second I have an issue with how someone does something. Seriously, get a life and piss off my talk page with your two faced cry bullying crap. I'm sick of asking you to leave me the along. Get the damn message for once. There's absolutely zero reason you need to be this up ass all the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree on the DR closure, but it doesn't justify your use of such language. You were already warned about this. I am waiting for some English speaking people to have their opinion(s), but if you get block, you will have deserve it. Yann (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Just piss off and let someone give me the warning next time. If you actually cared about deescalating things and me being civil getting up my ass like this every time I blink in the wrong direction on here isn't the way to do it. Abzeronow was totally capable of saying he had an issue with my tone and/or blocking me over it if he had a problem with the message. This just comes off as the usual crap from you though and it's not an effective way to get me to moderate my behavior. I don't think you actually care or want me to though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you don't get the point, so I reported you on COM:ANU#Adamant1 (again). Yann (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media without a license as of 27 April 2025

Hi, It seems that you uploaded a number of posters which do not have a proper license. Could you please fix that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Yeah, I'm in the process of going through the files. Kind of hard to do that when I'm dealing with the ANU complaint and whatnot though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to fix the license at the time of upload, not one week later. Again a bad excuse. Yann (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I asked Krd about it a few days after I uploaded the images and they extended the deadline by a week. So maybe take it up with them if you think the licenses should be fixed the second files are uploaded. It's not my issue that you guys can't follow the same standards though. You did the same crap a few years ago over the whole thing with creator templates when I talked to an administrator about it and then you blocked me for doing what they said. Seriously, I'm fixing the licenses as time permits. Anything beyond that isn't my issue. You really need to go find another tree to bark up. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Yann: I'd say that if Adamant1 is getting to these within a week of them being tagged, that is OK, even if not ideal. As far as I can tell there's a pretty high percentage of keepers here, and it's good content.

@Adamant1: on the other hand, any reason not to do smaller batches, so these don't languish as long in a state where their licensing status is unclear? - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it I downloaded from a couple of Flickr groups and there wasn't a way to do it in smaller batches. Otherwise it would have taken me months. I agree it probably should have been done that way though. I'm certainly not going to do it in large batches like this again. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve got a real problem with this. If 2,000 odd images are uploaded with no clear copyright status then that’s an entire week we have to wait whilst they get categorized. If Adamant1 wants to do bulk uploads, he really needs to have a way of doing it at the point of upload.

I don’t see why we are allowing images to be mass uploaded with licensing for any more than a few hours. Yann is not wrong - nobody should be uploading files without a correct license!

if this delays Adamant1’s process for uploading, then Adamant1 needs to find a better way of uploading images.

I also note that on ANU AdamAnt1 is accusing Yann of using threatening language against him. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template gives people a week to add a license to the file. So it's not my problem. I'm not going to add a license to a file the second I upload it when there's no requirement that people do it that way. I explained the thing about the warning being threating in the ANU complaint. I think I have a legitimate reason for feeling that way even if your not privy to it. Regardless, your free to take the licensing thing up on the Village Pump but it's not my issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poster movie - magazine - jesus christ superstar (54327335774).jpg

File:Poster movie - magazine - jesus christ superstar (54327335774).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]