User talk:Adamant1

Archive

Sorry

Sorry, this was my error here. I did not notice that it was on the wrong board. GPSLeo (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Question about 2 of your speedy deletion requests

Hello, Adamant1. I saw your speedy deletion requests for the following categories:

• Category:Collections of photographs by library (as opposed to Category:Photographs by library)
• Category:Collections of photographs by museum (as opposed to Category:Photographs by museum)

Was there a discussion to eliminate these categories and use the other names instead? I think we need to keep them. "Photographs by <institution>" can mean different things:

• Photographs owned/displayed by the institution (collection categories)
• Photographs of the institution
• Photographs acquired from the institution (source categories)

I've always disliked having to use "Collections of" for some kinds of things but not others, but I think it's needed for the kinds of media that Commons hosts so that the listed things don't get confused.

For example, in Category:Photographs by library I see categories with the following wording:

• Images from
• Photographs by
• Photographs from
• Photographs in

In Category:Photographs by museum, I see all of those plus:

• Media from
• Photographs kept by

The "from" wording is used for source categories, but possibly for other things as well.

Anyway, for now I have declined the speedy request and turned the "Collections of" categories into redirects. Please let me know if there was a discussion about this. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: There was no discussion, but the problem with the categories was that they contained subcats like Category:Photographs in the Austrian National Library which IMO isn't a "collection" in any meaningful way. IMO a "collection" should actually be one, like Category:George W. Cook Dallas & Texas Image Collection. Not just a category that has one or two random photographs that happen to be housed in the same library. Plus the proper category for photograph collections seems to be Category:Photograph collections anyway. Not Category:Collections of photographs.

So it seemed natural to delete the categories with that and the categories only containing categories for "photographs in whatever library" instead of actual collections. I don't care if they are redirected for now though. But ultimately they should be renamed to "photograph collections by library/museum." I just forgot to do it at the time. Hopefully that explains things. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Just so long as we get back to some name that is less ambiguous, I'm good. I personally would go with Category:Photograph collections by library etc.: clear, not over-wordy, and will easily cover both the case where there is a single, undifferentiated collection (e.g. a small history museum, or even a large one like MOHAI in Seattle which as far as I know does not break down its million-plus photos into separate "collections") and where there is a formal breakdown into multiple collections. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I created Category:Photograph collections by library. I still think there should be a clear distinction in the category system for a category containing random "photographs in a library" versus a legitimate, named collection of photographs that are being stored in a library. And I'm not sure how there just be a bunch of overlap between that and Category:Photographs by library. It seems like you have a use for it though. So whatever. I'll leave actually putting stuff in the category to other people but it would be good if it was used exclusively for actual, named collections. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't see any particular use of something called Category:Photographs by library, unless it were to be a disambiguation. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I guess the question would be if there's any photographs in a library that aren't part of a "collection." If not, then it seems like having the word "collection" in the name of the category is pointlessly redundant. Just like there isn't a Category:Vehicles with paint because most, if not all, vehicles are painted. Otherwise I don't see why Category:Photographs by library wouldn't be a useful category. Really, it should be in both cases unless I'm totally missing something here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Because people would misunderstand and add photographs of the library. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Categories

I read your most recent answer on my page. If the trouble is having categories with "too small" a number of images in them, we can have a deal here. Can we agree not to create any category by year unless we have at least, say, two items? I can agree on that. Although, we have at least one exception: the High medieval period, when documents are so rare that even finding one document that can be dated in one precise year deserves to be recorded. However, even if we cannot find an agreement with that second part, quite the fact that these documents are so incredibly rare, would not involve too big a mass of files, so I could pass on it. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@G.dallorto: That would be my prefence. With years where there probably isn't more then one image due to the rarity or whatever then they should just categorized "by decade" though. Although I agree that the year should be recored somewhere, just not through a category. But there is a way around that by organizing images "by year" but based on the next topic or whatever up. Like "1467 fresco of Italy" instead of "1467 fresco of Milan" or whatever. Since there's probably enough images to justify it at that point, just not that locally. Then the file can also go in a "fresco of Milan by decade" category. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella stamps of Switzerland

Your modification from yesterday has been cancelled. First: Cinderella stamps are not all "adhesive". Second: for all other countries, they are categorised "Stamps of XXX" (not "Adhesive stamps of XXX"). On the other hand, there is a debate on this subject here. Greetings. MHM (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@MHM55: It's hard for me to have an opinion about it since you didn't say exactly what categories your talking about but cinderella stamps are usually, if not exclusive, adhesive stamps. Otherwise I'd like to see an example. Although I agree that there's a discussion but there was also a previous discussion last year, Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Philately, where the consensus was to move images of postage stamps to categories specifically for them.

There's also Commons:Categories "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." And I'd argue dumping everything into "stamps" goes against that. But regardless, those two things didn't magically get ignored now just because someone started a new discussion. So don't be surprised if your edits get reverted. Although I would still be interested to see some examples of non-adhesive cinderella stamps on here. Since I can't remember ever coming across any and I've editing in the area for 6 years now. So can you provide some? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@MHM55: Never mind about the adhesive stamp thing specifically. since I responded to it in the discussion, but I'm not going to ignore the prior consensus or guideline about things not being put in ambiguous categories in the meantime since your clearly wrong that sealing stamps aren't adhesive and it's tangential to the wider issue I'm dealing with anyway. Thanks for the message though. Please respond in the CfD from now on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide the link to this document?

File:Hamilton City California - The New Home of the Sugar Beet (page 01).jpg Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: http://archives.csuchico.edu/digital/collection/coll24/id/1575 --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1, Can you add that link to the 31 uploaded pages of this informational pamphlet about Hamilton City and sugar beet farming? -- Ooligan (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: I would have done that but It's not clear to me if I should add a link to the main page for the book, the pages for individual pages, or the urls for the actual pages. You happen to know which one should be the source or does it even matter? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1, the link you provided above would be good for all 31 pages. The link lists the cover page and more links the other pages. All your uploads would be more valuable to others with a link to the source. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: OK. I'll add it to the files when I have some free time. I usually don't add a link to eBay because they delete listings after a couple of months but I guess there's no reason I can't do it for things from other sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You may already know this. To get a permanent archive link to any webpage, You can copy the eBay link (or any other source) and paste it here: https://web.archive.org/ - on the right side of this page is "Save Page Now". Just paste link and click "save page." After a short wait, you will have an archival link that will likely outlast most webpages.

• Like that page says, "Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future." Best regards, --

Ooligan (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Orlando - Large Letter Postcard (5670459459).jpg

File:Orlando - Large Letter Postcard (5670459459).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

(Oinkers42) (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

"Category:LGBT pride in small towns" removals reverted

Your removal of cities and towns from the category "LGBT pride in small towns" has been reverted as there was no discussion or communication on your part for the justification for removal. Any attempt to remove them again without discussion/dialog may be considered an edit war.

While we are volunteers here on Wikipedia there is still an expectation of professionalism and communication especially when making disruptive edits that could have the appearance of vandalism or homophobia. The category has been renamed LGBTQ pride in cities & towns under 30,000. If you still have issue with the category please leave your view points on the category's talk page. Myotus (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Myotus: No need for the smug tone. This isn't Wikipedia and per Commons:Categories "there should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." "Small" is obviously meaningless. Maybe it's different on Wikipedia, but people don't usually have to discuss up-merging a single category that clearly goes against the guidelines. I'm not going to waste my time on your bossy, rude nonsense by doing anything with LGBTQ pride in cities & towns under 30,000 but I'd say the same goes there. Under 30000 what and why is that the cut off point? Maybe put some thought into how you create categories and read the guidelines next time before you do it. Instead of just acting rude when someone is trying to make a good faithed effort to fix your mistakes. Thanks for the condescending message though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow, yet another user who can't be bothered to use basic civility or follow the guidelines because their to busy being smug and bossing people around. Go figure. I really do wonder why I bother sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/08/Category:LGBTQ pride in cities & towns under 30,000 --Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edits on Category:Bemidji Pride have been reverted

Your removal of the categories has been reverted as there was no discussion or communication on your part for the justification for removal. It appears that you are vandalizing the category for a vendetta. Pursuing this course of action may get you blocked. Myotus (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

See your talk page. It's not vandalism to add a category for organizations to one for an organization. There's nothing to discuss there either. Stop threating me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have left your edit "Category:LGBT organizations in Minnesota" in Bemidji Pride and returned "Category:LGBTQ pride in cities & towns under 30,000" as that issue is still unresolved. 23:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC) Myotus (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Myotus: Just because there's an ongoing CfD for the main category doesn't mean any single category has to, or should, remain in the category until it's concluded and having a category for an organization in ones for events is clearly wrong. Your free to add Category:LGBTQ pride in cities & towns under 30,000 to the category for the actual pride events but please skip the edit waring, threats, and ownership BS. You aren't the arbitrator of everything having to do with LGBTQ subjects on here and you can't just bully me into doing what you want. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Bemidji Pride is an organization AND an event. 00:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Myotus (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Myotus: Yeah, and there's separate categories for the organization and events that shouldn't be put in the same parent category for pride parades. What's your point? No offense, but I'm seriously starting to think you have some competency issues here. Apparently your to busy flipping out and acting like a bully to understand the basics of how categorization works. Maybe step back from this, read the guidelines, and chill out. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The photos are of the Bemidji Pride festival not photos of the Bemidji Pride organization so it should not go into organization. A cursory glance at other non-LGBT parades and festivals show that they are not typically categorized under organization unless the parade or festival is named for the sponsoring organization aka Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Myotus (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the photographs are of. There's nothing stopping someone from creating a category for the organization if they want to. That's how people do it all the time! that's why I said to read the guidelines and chill out. Your making an issue out of something that literally no one cares about and people do all the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2025 (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#Insulting and bullying language and edit warring. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Myotus (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:1908 one penny token, Haggi Chapter No. 14, Royal Arch Masons, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (19089221742).jpg

And also:

• File:Back side of souvenir shekel. (18618958714).jpg
• File:Elks token -- good for one 5c. cigar. Ann Arbor, Michigan. (18210284715).jpg
• File:Fred1 (19409722558).jpg
• File:Glass dosage cup from Mann Bros. Druggists, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 100+ years old. (19385953552).jpg
• File:J. F. Wuerth Co -- token -- reverse. (18206269992).jpg
• File:J. F. Wuerth Co. -- token -- "Keep me so you don't forget the best place for boy's suits," Ann Arbor, Michigan. (18209930455).jpg
• File:Kadette Junior portable radio, with cord and packing box. Radio was assembled in Ann Arbor, Michigan. (17618332034).jpg
• File:Lewis Jewelers, 2000 W. Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Location of the original Ann Arbor McDonalds drive-in. (19700304599).jpg
• File:Lucky penny in a horse shoe design advertises Fred Brown's saloon, "Tontine and Goldmine," 111 North Main Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (19571559836).jpg
• File:Mary Hathaway and others at Old Fourth Ward Spring Party, June 4, 2015. (17887278954).jpg
• File:Mary Hathaway at name tag table, Old Fourth Ward Spring Party, June 4,2015. (17887286824).jpg
• File:Model version of a lumber carrier. (18254727384).jpg
• File:Perry School as seen from rooftop garden of new Munger Graduate Residence Hall. (19803673861).jpg
• File:Pinback convention button from Ann Arbor Elks lodge 325 depicts the University of Michigan's old University Hall -- "The Seat of Knowledge." (18497163446).jpg
• File:Post card of soccer game in Michigan Stadium. (19044226713).jpg
• File:President Obama at Zingerman's in Ann Arbor, April, 2014. (19318061730).jpg
• File:President Obama at Zingerman's in Ann Arbor, Michigan, with traveling folk singer Richard Shindell -- April, 2014. (18883501124).jpg
• File:Red Catalin Kadette Clockette radio (18527783704).jpg
• File:Royal Arch Masons, back side of one penny token. (19068660236).jpg
• File:Souvenir ashtray from Preketes Bros. Sugar Bowl restaurant, S. Main Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (18632954879).jpg
• File:Superior Dairy Co., Ann Arbor, Michigan -- ice cream tin (18874588951).jpg
• File:Token -- BPOE Elks No. 325. (17587671954).jpg
• File:Town House Hotel souvenir glass ashtray. (19033820393).jpg
• File:Washtenaw Chapter No. 6, Royal Arch Masons -- Centennial shekel, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1950. (18620873163).jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:A Puzzle for Ayumu - Larry Fulton Postcard (14331531493).jpg

And also:

• File:A Puzzle for Kurasawa - Larry Fulton Postcard (14307997951).jpg
• File:Action Pants by Wil Stiles - Larry Fulton Postcard (12632985255).jpg
• File:Bonjour from Paris, Howdy from Texas - Larry Fulton Postcard (5335669657).jpg
• File:Greetings from America, 2008 - Larry Fulton Postcard (5335172679).jpg
• File:Greetings from Twin Palms, Palm Springs, California, 2010 - Larry Fulton Postcard (5336298176).jpg
• File:Say Cheese! Wichita, 2011 - Larry Fulton Postcard (6486224717).jpg
• File:Sink the Tea Party, A Toxic Brew for America - Larry Fulton Postcard (6265695321).jpg
• File:Stand With Oakland - Larry Fulton Postcard (6486240789).jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard#Edit warring by Adamant1. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Useddenim (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

File:الرباط - متحف بريد المغرب 07.jpg

Hello Adamant1,

did you remove this file from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2024 stamps of Morocco on purpose? It is still here with the DR tag intact. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I don't really remember what happened there. Probably it should just be deleted like the other images were, but I removed the DR tag in the meantime. Thanks for letting me know about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890

The book title is "Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890", as seen on its title page [1] at the source. It is a perfectly good book title, with a comma and no parenthesis. The best category name for the book is the book title, and therefore the book title "Category:Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890" is a perfectly good category name for that book. The duplicate category "Category:Conseil municipal de Paris (1871-1890)" is not a correct category name for this book. There is no reason to remove the years from the title, nor to add an extension in parenthesis to distinguish this category from another one that does not exist. Parenthesis in the category name would make sense only to distinguish it from another category for another book with exactly the same title. Even then, the extension in parenthesis would be added after the book title "Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890". For example, if there had been two different books titled identically "Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890", with photos by two different photographers, then this category could be "Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890 (Marius)" and the other category could be "Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890" (John Doe)". But there is only one book and one category, so there is no need for a distinguishing extension in parenthesis. There are two volumes of the book, tome 1er and tome II, but the photos are in this single category for the whole book. That single category is therefore named with their common title, which is "Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890". If you believe that the name of the category should be changed, please first open a discussion to that effect and request the opinions of other users, do not change it unilaterally, especially by doing it against the renaming policy by creating a duplicate page and trying to destroy the existing category instead of preserving the history. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Sorry, but I kind of spaced out after the first couple of sentences. I don't really care about the name of the category, except that one's without camas are just easier to read and search for IMO (especially in instances where what's after that is a range of years), but I'd appreciate it if you skipped the mini-essay if your going to leave messages on my talk page again. It shouldn't be that hard to make a point in one or two paragraphs. Or at least put them on new lines instead of just using a wall of text that no one is going to waste the time reading.

Also, it's wrong to add categories for photograph albums of the 1870s and 1880s when it was published in 1890. So I removed them again. Please add them back. It's not a photograph album from the 1870s just because a couple of photographs in it were from that decade. Be my guest and add the photographs that are actually from the 1870s to a category for it though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/09/Category:Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890. Absolutely worthless time suck but hey, whatever. That's on you. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2024 voting is open!

2023 Picture of the Year: Incense plays an important role in Vietnamese life. It is considered as a sacred bridge to connect the visible life of human beings and the world of heaven, earth, and gods. Photo taken in Quang Phu Cau village, on the outskirts of Hanoi, Vietnam. In this picture, incense sticks are being set out to dry, after being dipped in the incense solution.

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2024 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year is the nineteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 27 September 2025, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2023 Picture of the Year contest.

FYI: Unsigned comment

Hi, just letting you know that you forgot to sign your comment: [2]. Regards, Nakonana (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Just an FYI in case you weren't aware but you can sign unsigned comments by putting "unsigned|" in brackets with the users name after the vertical bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Adamant1. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC) is available for this.

Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not edit war

---

You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.

Re-naming the file File:Mabbett and Edge auction postal card Skiddaw Bank, Keswick etc - 1894 - obverse.jpg back-and-forth is edit warring.--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Your file mover right has been removed

---

Adamant1, I just removed your file mover user right because The rename was cosmetic and not supported by COM:FR; the original name was already a generally valid filename. Repeated renames under such invalid reasons indicate a lack of understanding of file renaming criteria, which is required to hold the filemover right. Per discussion. while you renamed File:Mabbett and Edge auction postcard, Skiddaw Bank, Keswick etc - 1894 - obverse.jpg to File:Mabbett and Edge auction postal card Skiddaw Bank, Keswick etc - 1894 - obverse.jpg for the following reason: [different reasons, wheel-warring].

If I misunderstood something, feel free to contact me. Otherwise you may request this right again at Commons:Requests for rights explaining how you will use it in future.

File renaming is problematic because it breaks links, image inclusions on external websites and even temporarily on the Wikimedia Server cluster. It also adds a lot of workload to the servers because its technical implementation is sub-optimal. That's why we have such a strict policy.

Besides the technical issues, lots of different people have different options about how a file should be named.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

It is with much regret that I have applied this indefinite block as a result of the ANU discussion. I hope you take this time off and reflect on the recent events, for a future return. You may request an unblock in the future by demonstrating to the community that you understand these issues and can edit collaboratively. Thank you for your contributions and understanding.--Bedivere (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah well, "broad consensus by the community" like the same three users who have been trying to get me blocked for years and always support ANU complaints no matter how bullshit they are and two people I've never interacted with in my life. And "strength of the arguments" like "per nom." Can't even have bothered to leave the thing open for more then a day for other people to comment either even though I've spent a good portion of 7 years of life on here. Real fair way to do it. What a joke. It's just an endless game of you guys stepping on racks while lashing out at and targeting users. And I'm the one supposedly escalating things when I didn't start ANU complaint, the indef proposal, and accepted the consensus in the administrator board discussion. Right. You guys and your unserious, retaliatory way of dealing with users is way more of a detriment to the project them me saying something is nitpicking will ever be.

The amount of conversations, emails, Etc. Etc. I've had about you guys and the way deal with things by user you ran off with your decisions. The amount of people Yann has driven off the platform by doing involved editing but you guys could really give a crap and never deal with it. But I'm the bad guy because I hurt PigsonWings poor little feelings by renaming a file. Yeah right. Absolute trash project and way of dealing with issues. Just total incompetence and hypocrisy all the way down. 100% absolute pandering to dishonest cry bullies. That's literally all you guys do. Cry bully and bend over backwards to accommodate them. Essentially Commons in a nut shell right now. Step on racks, use the administrator privileges to bully users, and pander to other bullies so there's never any accountability or consequences for it. Rinse, repeat. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I can tell you're incredibly frustrated right now. I truly believe you're a valuable contributor, who's put a huge amount of dedication and it shjows how much you care about Commons. However, I have to suggest you to take a moment and step back. Letting the emotion drive your responses, using sometimes strong language, often just makes the cycle (where things get intensely personal and turn into an endless game of escalating reactions) continue, overshadowing any valid points you're trying to make. Sometimes the most powerful choice is to let the waves pass. Best of luck. Bedivere (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: I've talked to other users over email who use ChatGPT or their family members to review messages they before posting them so they don't get reported to ANU or sanctioned. These are extremely well mannered, established users I'm talking about here. The other day I got lectured for supposedly being mocking because I replied to something I thought was funny with "lol." GreenMeansGo gave me final warning partially for swearing because I said "ass" and then called something I said "bullshit" in literally the next conversation I had with them. 100% people on here are just cry bullies who play defense for each other over non-issues. There's no other website on the god damn internet where I'd receive a long winded, stern email accusing me of mocking people because I laughed at a god damn joke.

You guys are just way to far up your own asses about this to see how absolutely toxic the culture is on here and how unworkable it is to get along with other people. You've literally created an environment where users can't laugh at jokes and have to consult with a whole marketing department before posting a message so they don't get retaliated against. And where in one conversation it's a blockable offense to say an extremely mild swear word if your one type of users but it's totally cool for another type to use much harsher language in the next one. That's totally not on me or my emotions. It's 100% just the two faced, dysfunctional, authoritarian way you guys deal with things. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

No one gets blocked for saying "ass" or receives lecturing emails for laughing at a joke anywhere else on the internet. It's 100% an issue with Commons and the bullying cultural people created and maintain on here. If I can't even say ass without getting reported to ANU or blocked then seriously, fuck it and fuck this site at that point. You guys need to get out of your basements and spend some time in the real world. That's not my issue. I'm not going to hire a whole PR team to write or review my messages just so I don't get chewed out over email, reported to ANU, or blocked because I dared to laugh at something I thought was funny. Have fun with that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Literally everyone I've talked to on here says people are abusive assholes and that the administrators are corrupt and have no clue what their doing. There isn't a website on the god damn internet where you guys don't come and get roundly criticized for the way things. Occam's razor dog. Your just classic bullies and victim blamers who in denial about how abusive you and how much of absolutely unusable shit show this whole thing is. But hey, I'm just being emotional because I got indefed. Whatever. The whole things just pathetic and sad. Like I give a shit.

Oh cool, I don't get to have racist, bigoted, hateful bullshit thrown at me all day everyday that you guys just a free to pass to while acting like I'm the most horrible thing on here just because I wanted to rename a file. The jokes on you guys for having a website that know one knows about, uses, or gives two shits to because your all corrupt two faced assholes and the interface is shit out of a god damn 1990s website because your all sick, demented tech bro boomers who can't be bothered to use a modern interface for some god damn reason. There's absolutely nothing on here that works or doesn't take a ton of bullshit and begging to use. Again, have fun with that while I'm off enjoying the modern web with people who aren't victim blaming, washed up irrelevant assholes. You guys are just a pathetic, sad group of ill relevant losers. Full stop and it's not my problem your that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: Like look at the U4C case dog. It was totally bullshit to begin with but even if it wasn't, 6 months for them to jack shit. They couldn't be bothered to update me on it the multiple times I messaged them and asked on Meta about where the hell it was at. Know one benefits from that shit. You don't because you had to deal with me for another six months while they didn't jack shit and I don't because I could just be done you abuser assholes six ago instead of wasting more of my life on. It's a worthless, infective way to run a project. You guys just can't do a basic level of personal reflection to see how screwed up it is for some god damn reason. I'm just being emotional by pointing out that the U4C is totally worthless and that know one benefits from or likes how you guys do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I believe you've been on Commons long enough to know without my spelling it out why blocked users are normally afforded access to their user talk pages. It is not so they can post tirades about their grievances.

As it stands, you were blocked with a good deal of reluctance expressed, and invited to appeal the block in six months. However, if you continue in this vein you are certain to have your talk page accessed removed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It looks like the U4C case was closed because it's supposedly been dealt with now by me being indefed even though the issue with involved blocks was never addressed or dealt with. When it's something that clearly violates the guidelines and even fucking Barkeep49 warrants discussion. So essentially Yann's years of abusing the tools and the suing the privilege harass users (a good portion which was clearly targeted at me) is just swept under the rug even though everyone on here knows it's a problem. While I'm indefed after 2 blocks two week blocks that were done through involved editing. As if going from a couple of week blocks that clearly shouldn't have happened to literally being banned for life from contributing is fair way to do things but sweeping years of abusive behavior by two administrators who everyone agrees are corrupt pieces of shit is a fair, workable way to do things.

Why the hell would I bother appealing the block or having anything else to do with you two faced, condescending assholes again when you guys are more then willing to feed into administrators endlessly abusing and harassing people but have zero issue with throwing normal users under the bus over literally nothing the second there's a chance to? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Literally everything I've said about is 100% the truth and based on clear evidence. Way more then any of the made up bullshit I've been accused or blocked for over the years. You guys are either in denial, have a serious case of stockholm syndrome, or just don't give a shit. There's zero reason I would want anything to do with you two faced cultist creeps or this platform again either way though. The fucking god damn Branch Davidians are more based in reality and able to deal with their problems then you fucking people are. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Can an admin just go ahead and revoke their talkpage access? Some people definitely have to be saved from themselves. --A.Savin 07:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey look it's another admin besides Yann who gets a free pass to act like a corrupt two faced creep for years while I can't even make a couple of mildly critical comments without being indefed. Next Yann will be on here even though he's banned from my talk page and nothing will be done about it yet again for the 15 millionth time because you guys could literally give a shit about any kind of standards when your the ones violating them. In retrospect me saying this is like Germany during the 30s was probably a little two mild. There's a reason most of the gaslighting bullying on here always comes from German and Italian users though and it's not the water in Europe. I said I'm done. I could give a shit if my talk page access is restricted. I'm the one saving myself from you abusive creeps. The jokes on you. Enjoy the echo chamber while you guys continue to bleed out users because of how absolutely shit people like you and this fucking platform are though. YOU SURE SHOWED ME! --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Your user talk page access has been revoked due to continued incivility and personal attacks. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2024 voting is open!

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2024.

Round 2 will end at 11 October 2025, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now! If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee