User talk:Adamant1

---

WEBHOST

Hi, You can tag abuse of COM:WEBHOST as speedy deletion, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Major KB.jpg, and also warn the uploader ([1]). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware that was an option. I'll try to do it that way in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not make any edits on my user page

Hello Adamant1, I hereby ask you not to make any changes to my user page or its subpages. Many thanks and best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joachim Köhler: I don't think I've edited your user page. So what are you talking about and/or what does this have to do with? Otherwise sure, I'll keep not doing something I wasn't doing to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) presumably https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joachim_K%C3%B6hler/Photo_credit_box1&diff=prev&oldid=906312715. I understand the project you were up to, but this does not look like an appropriate edit. People are permitted to use the word "postcard". - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Sure. But the usage in a template caused it to be added to thousands of files that were screwing with a search and there's no specific reason the template had to say "postcard." Is there a rule about what exactly a template has to say or one against people editing them just because they were created by another user? I was under the impression users don't own the content they upload or create on here. Like if I were to create a licensing template involving a list of random words that have nothing to do with anything for no other reason then I can would that be totally OK and un-editable by anyone else? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You could have discussed it with him but this was not "random", it was quite to the point. And, yes, as long as you are an active contributor (or even a past contributor, and not blocked) you do more or less "own" what is in your user space, as long as it doesn't outright violate policy (e.g. you don't get to make personal attacks there, or violate copyrights). This is why people are free to delete things from their own user talk page, even to the point of somewhat obscuring the fact that they've had a lot of warnings. For example, it would not be anyone else's prerogative to change which picture of a particular person I chose for User:Jmabel/People, or to change one of the descriptions there. - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And I understand how this was inconvenient for you, but it isn't as if you had been given mandate and permission to run roughshod over other user's pages to achieve your goal. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Sure, I could have discussed it with him. Someone else modified their template to remove the word and I was under pressure to get rid of the maintenance templates at the time. So I didn't think it would matter that much since it was a fairly superficial change. It's not that it was an "inconvenience." It literally got in the way of curating images. So don't make this about my feelings.

Regardless, I don't consider templates that are used on thousands of files to be sacred cows. Nor are they IMO akin to something like a persons talk page, which I wouldn't modify since they don't effect other places on the project outside of the user space. At least IMO any time someone does something that has broad consequences that effect other people's ability to contribute to the project then it's fair game. Of course there's a balance there. I wouldn't have modified the template to get rid of a random word that had no effect on anything. If I ever create a template that has an impact on thousands of pages and fucks with other people's ability to do their work be my guest and change it. I'm not that much of a self-entitled control freak. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Historical images

What is this new thing of deleting the "Historical images" categories? Is there a discusssion about it? Thank you Sailko (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sailko: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. I was just telling someone else that there should have been an announcement about it on the Village Pump or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk page broken

Your talk page is somehow broken. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 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 (15 August 2024). reversals.

Enhancing999 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: Super petty. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Former photographic studios

Please could you kindly explain to me why the above category has been made redundant? The above category was removed from Category:Studios of T & J Holroyd, photographers, and replaced with "Photographic studios", which makes no sense, because that building has not been a photographic studio since the 19th century. It was recently sold for several million pounds, and is not likely to be a photographic studio again. I believe it is now either a residence or offices. Storye book (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Storye book: Two things. First of all Photographic studios aren't buildings. Although they can be in them sometimes, but a lot of times they are just in a room or other part of the building. So having them attached to a category like "Buildings by former function" makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Secondly, there is no other category for "former" things that I could find outside of "Buildings by former function and there is no other parent category to put Category:Former photographic studios in since Category:Former doesn't seem to be a thing. Apparently there's Category:Formers but it has no relation to buildings, businesses, photographic studios, or anything related to this. So "former" is clearly ambiguous and not a thing on here outside of the whole "buildings by former function" thing. That's not even to mention that buildings don't have "functions" to begin with either.

Regardless, Category:Former photographic studios is clearly nonsensical. It's also debatable that categories for defunct businesses are useful or worth having in the first place. That kind of information should really just be stored on Wikidata's side. Otherwise we would have to be constantly recategorizing things based on if a particular business is open or not at the time. In regards to photographic studios in particular a better way to categorize them is probably by decade or year of opening or something like that. If not just store it on Wikidata. Since I don't think the specific year a photographic studio closed is really a useful way to categorize them. Anyway, that's why I nominated Category:Former photographic studios for speedy deletion. It's clearly ambiguous at best, totally pointless and goes against the guidelines at worst. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Storye book (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Shops aren't generally buildings either, and some hotels or restaurants or even post offices aren't, but that is where we categorize them. I don't see why this should be any different. When dealing with historic buildings, we are often interested in categorizing under their various historical uses, but it seems to me to make sense to indicate former uses as being former, not current, when we know that.

I don't feel a strong stake in this, but I also don't think there is a broad consensus against it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I'm aware of us doing that with shops. There was only a couple of sub-categories and files in it to begin with and you could argue the comparable category for shops probably shouldn't exist either since it doesn't make sense either. If you look at a lot of the sub-categories in Category:Former commerce buildings most of them make snese. For instance the cateogry for former bank buildings. Obviously there's former and current bank buildings. That doesn't mean every single thing even slightly related to commerce deserve a "former building" category though. Its just an easy and lazy way to categories closed businesses. One that clearly isn't accurate in a lot of instances. In general I think its important keep categories for retail buildings mostly seperate from the ones for whatever business was occupying them at any given time or just muddying the waters to much. Like there's two story mixed used building where I live. It has housing on the second floor and there was a skate shop on the bottom floor for a lot of years which went out of business. Now its a place that sells wedding supplies or something. Anyway, neither "former skate shop buildings" or "weeding supply buildings" makes sense there. Does that mean there aren't former church buildings or that I care if someone creates a "former church buildings" catrgory. No of course not. You can't just do it every kind of business. No one considers a wedding planner to be a "wedding planning building." Its just nonsensical. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Dmitry Medvedev by day

This has been going for the same amount of time as the Putin category discussion. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion? I am one of the participant in this discussion and there are enough votes to delete this category as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: Yeah, I had planned to deal with it after I'm finished deleting the by day categories for Putin. I don't see why there shouldn't be the same outcome there as with the other CfDs for similar categories though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)