User talk:Adamant1

---

Concern trolling

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Greetings and some notes

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@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)

A barnstar for you!

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

International trucks

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)

@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)

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)

DRs for in-use images

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

@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. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)