User talk:Adamant1

---

Daily Express

Hello! I'm the author of this upload. Can you, please, review it and keep it, since I has updated the license? --Yeeeep nooope (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yeeeep nooope: I'll have a look at when I have the time. I am interested to know what point in PD-UK-unknown since its not a photograph, art, or a literary work. Its probably hard to tell exactly what it is with something like this that is essentially mixed media, but I assume the work would have to be at least one of those for PD-UK-unknown to be appropriate. Although if it isn't who knows what would be. License templates could really be clearer as to what exactly they can be used on or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

? Decision deletion RCE images ?

Dear Adamant1,

There has been a misunderstanding, see

• Commons:Deletion_requests/Photos_interiors_Noorderhaven_5_and_7,_Groningen,_for_RCE-2023-09
• at the end.

It seems you missed important information regarding the requested courtesy deletion, which we normally in fact did allow. It occurred rarely.

• Could you please read the NEW INFORMATION there halfway on the page and reconsider?

It is not about pressure by an owner, but about correcting an error made by the image donor RCE breaking a promise. Courtesy deletion is reasonable and important for the credibility of Wikimedia in the Netherlands.

Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand it's about correcting an error. The problem is that's not an error that can be corrected. Nor should it be regardless. Sorry. See my comment in the DR for why. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"over 1 million images in their holdings"

Well yes, it's a rather large state archive, or more precisely an umbrella institution with a common web site for 6 regional state archives (for a state with a population bigger than that of Georgia and with a history going back much longer, which means more holdings). A good chunk of their images will look like this: digital files created from microform copies of their old paper files, 1 page per image file (or sometimes 2). But even the Pragher collection alone has over 360 000 photographs, and they have other collections like this one. Accd. to [1], they have 24.6 million digital image files online at the moment. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hi there. In the future, if a category is completely empty, can you please tag it SD|C2 instead of SD|C1? That way I can just click the delete button and it'll show the right rationale in the deletion log. Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. We don't usually create categories for individual stamps based on their catalog number. So I thought C1 would work since they are clearly improperly named, but I'm fine with using C2 instead if it doesn't work for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion Briefmarkexxx

If there is really a copyright problem with the original creators, then I can't help it. Can such files be kept in some secure backup, not publicly visible, so that they could be restored eventually? --PeterFrankfurt (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Files aren't technically deleted. Just hidden from public view until they are out of copyright and they should be restored whenever that is. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edits on ANU

Hi, You should take AFBorchert's warning seriously, and stop arguing there. Yann (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a warning. He's just dragging me through the dirt for no reason when I've been more then reasonable about the whole thing. I said what I'm doing has already been discussed and follows the guidelines. I don't know what else you guys want. There's literally nothing people like him or A.Savin will accept outside of 100% agreement with whatever they say and that's not what I'm here for. Sorry. Same goes for spending multiple months editing something because the guidelines say categories names shouldn't be ambiguous and there was already a discussion about it just so the edits can be reverted by people who could really care less about either one. It's not like I'm not open to alternative ways to better organize the images, but I don't see anyone posing any. Just insulting me and trying to stop my efforts to make things easier to organize. I'm sure I couldn't ask anyone in that discussion what there alternative is without them claiming I'm being arguementive or some nonsense along those lines either. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Better means for Wikidata Infobox

Hi. Adding {{Wikidata Infobox}} is great, though less useful when you add the q= parameter at this end. Most useful to add the category to the item list as per 'Ferdynand Śliwa' (Q98271245) in the "Multilingual sites" section.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I didn't know it mattered. So I'll try to do that way instead going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The reason it matters is that if you add it on Wikidata it then becomes an interwiki link, so all Wikipedias (etc.) with that link get a link to Commons & vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk

Thank you for defending me

Thank you for defending me against users assuming bad faith. Historical revisionism is such a huge problem. I'm in hot water on Latvian Wikipedia for removing a link to a neo-Nazi blogspot that fawns over Herbert Cukurs, this historical revisionism is becoming insane.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not a fan of all the historical revisionism going on lately either and I know its impossible these days to say or do anything even slightly critical of Ukraine or Ukranians without being treated like a pariah. So it is what it is. Don't be supprised if you get targeted or blocked from other projects. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No kidding, the historical revisionism these days is insane. I recently got in trouble on Latvian Wikipedia for trying to remove a link to a self-published blogspot fawning over Herbert Cukurs (the Butcher of Riga) from his Latvian language article. Same editor who protected the page to presevedthe blogspot link is also insisting that calling the Latvian Legion (part of the Waffen SS) "Nazi" equal to calling the Red Army "Nazi" (cheif opponent of the SS). They somehow managed to out-stupid the clown who wrote that Kazakh oral tradition is "propaganda" that does cultural appropriation of Kazakh culture!--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think this is cause for admin intervention?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Remembrance_Day_of_the_Latvian_Legionnaires User who insisted on keeping a pro-Cukurs blogspot in the Cukurs article keeps using the word "alleged" and insisting that the Latvian Legion and Cukurs himself are not Nazis. Cherry on top is blaming Kazakhs for the Hamas rockets (they somehow managed to top the retard who wrote that Kazakh oral tradition is propaganda of cultural appropriation of Kazakh culture). I think this is ban-worthy but I'm afraid of filing the complain alone lest they fight dirty and start attacking Kazakhstan with more load of retarded anti-Kazakh propaganda.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The author traditionally lies - the Kazakh people were not mentioned at all in my sharp part of answer. Muslims could be offended from it, yes.

And the problem is not some kind of anti-Kazakh propaganda (this is the first time I’ve heard of the existence of such), but in one user who is constantly being rude and lieble on various Wikipedias and imagining hostile conspiracies around him. -- Egīls Belševics (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Shall I quote you? "my wife and son are sitting in Ashdod under your Muslim missiles. Moreover, your country is openly in alliance with Russia". (bold for emphasis) How stupid do you have to be to thin those rockets are "our" missiles? It is not a conspiracy theory that Herberts Cukurs was a Nazi war criminal, it is not a conspiracy theory that the Waffen SS was Nazi, it is not a conspiracy theory that blogspot is a self-published source, it is not a conspiracy theory that Kazakhstan Ukraine Belarus Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Latvia have no Freedom of Panorama. Egilus is a Nazi apologist in case it isn't obvious from his passionate defense of Herberts Cukurs and the Waffen SS. And an Islamophobe for thinking that every single rocket from Gaza is property of the whole umma including ones with good relations with Israel.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I am now banned on English Wikipedia for 3 days for "attacking" and "harassing" him and supposedly not notifying him of the discussion (that I pinged him in). I did not make up the term "butcher of Riga"! I didn't fire rockets at anyone I'm not even Palestinian! Kazakhstan isn't Russia! Kazakhstan is a secular country! I hate to meatpuppet but can you please tell him that Kazakhstan is not a party to the war in Gaza and doesn't make the rockets?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see nothing here to do with Commons. Please don't import conflicts from other wikis into Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Said user that accused me of the rockets also insults my FoP deletion nominations.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

About deletions

Just don't go for soccer stadiums. Situation can get very complicated. Just a suggestion, remembering what happened last time :) Sailko (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. Just an FYI, but I've always thought it was weird that sports stadiums could be copyrighted since their usually pretty generic. So I don't think you have anything to worry about. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Creator templates

If you make a creator template (e.g., Creator:Clarence E. Bisbee), be sure to add it to files so it doesn't go unused. DS (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I usually do but I must have forgotten in that case. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

About deletions

Hello. Honestly, I do not understand why you are eliminating so many pictures from Commons. I understand that theoretically there is FoP, but really nobody has cared for years if not decades. Are you having fun depriving contributors of their work, and Wikipedia users from richer information? I have also noticed you encountered strong backlash from other users, you should at least stop and discuss more thoroughly, as some of your actions about what to delete or not are also very questionable. @Sailko 93.70.13.59 09:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sailko: Actually a lot of the images are pretty recent. Like from Wiki Loves Monuments 2023. Regardless, that's on whomever decided to upload images that don't follow the guidelines to begin with. Especially when it comes to the various Wiki Loves Monuments projects. I also reject the idea that we should allow images that clearly violate copyright to be hosted on Commons just because they have been here for a while or that the "backlash" (as you call it) should stop us from dealing with such images. It would of course make the website unmaintainable if were to acquiesced when it comes to allowing for copyrighted images every time a person (or group of people) threw a childish tantrum because a couple of images they uploaded were deletion. And it's not like I'm the cause of the files being deleted anyway. Sure, I've been nominating images for deletion that I think violate copyright, but it's not like the aforementioned tantrum throwers can't just say why the images aren't copyright violations. Or at least take it up with the closing administrator/do an un-deletion request if they don't feel like putting in that extremely small amount of effort at the beginning because they are to busy throwing around insults or whatever. I'm totally fine withdrawing any DR I open if someone makes a reasonable argument for why it's wrong. Anyway, the long-term solution to this would be for the people involved to follow the guidelines, not have such un-realistic expectations about what the purposes of Commons is, and to police themselves when it comes to dealing with copyright violations. Instead of treating this like a glorified pirating website while harassing anyone who even slightly disagrees. Then there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not going to allow for a small minority of people to bully me or anyone else into not dealing with it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Adamant, I did not leave you this message, the anonymous user just tagged me. Btw, WLM images received a specific authorization via OTRS, so we should not trouble about them, any possible compalaint will be legally covered by who released the authorization--Sailko (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I thought your name was included because you left the message while logged out and then signed it after the fact. I'm not really sure which images or authorizations your referring to, but there's plenty of examples where people have uploaded images without having authorizations and when they clearly violated copyright as part of a Wiki Loves Monuments event. Really, it's a rather regularly occurrence. So what I said about how they don't do a good job policing themselves is still valid regardless. Although it also applies to users from the same countries dealing with copyright violations when the image is of something related to said country. I'll spare you the rant about it though since your apparently not the IP editor who originally left the message ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

re:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pinacoteca Giovanni e Marella Agnelli

Hi, how is that relevant? Did anyone made reference do the agreement between WMI and the Government in that dr? Jaqen (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jaqen: You said "keep per authorization." I assume by "authorization" you where talking about the agreement between WLMI and the government of Italy since there isn't any other authorization from what I can tell and that's what everyone in DR was talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact Marta Arosio did link an authorization in that dr. I thought it was clear enough I was referring to that one since no other authorization was referred in that dr, but I have added a link to avoid confusion. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify! Bye! Jaqen (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)