User talk:Adamant1

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 ! talk 03:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Look in the history of this talk page (shortly before you more or less blanked it), you'll see what I wrote. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Then leave out "Adamant1's"; I thought it was all your project and basically a user category. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Best regards, – Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

@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)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	for the great work that you do! ─ Aafī (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 ! talk 02:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, would you check please your repeated deletion request to this file from today? There is one request running with a long explanation that it fulfills criteria. I expect a decision. Thankyou.--Wortulo (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I mean your mass deletion request, you did sign? Shouldn’t yo look in advance, if there are already deletion requests running for some files? --Wortulo (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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. 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 statement This 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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 ! talk 03:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Kritzolina: Can you at least make it so I can appeal the block please? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already can do this. Read more about it here. Kritzolina (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

See above Kritzolina (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

{{|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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I did reply to your mail, please check your inbox and spam folder. Kritzolina (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Kritzolina: I sent you another email. Please let me know if you don't get it so I can resend it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 ! talk 02:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]