User talk:Adamant1

User_talk:Adamant1/Archive_1

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

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 (2023) 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 2023.

Round 2 will end at 28 October 2024, 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
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

SD|G2

Hi Adamant1. Thanks for your efforts to clean up and maintain Commons. It is a massive and thankless task, but you keep at it. But when you tag pages with {{sd|G2}} as you did here (and all the other <List of X in Paris>, you should not remove the content, just add the tag only. This is misleading to the admin that deals with it, who obviously didn't check the page's history. Thanks again. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@P199: Yep. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Monuments historiques in Paris

Hi, There are 20 pages, so a speedy deletion is not appropriate. Please create a regular DR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: It looks like you only reverted two deletion requests So I'm not really sure what your talking about. I'm not sure how that would work regardless though. As I nomintated them for deletion based on different reasons and there doesn't seem to be a way to mass nominate galleries for deletion like there is for files anyway. I assume it can't be done with Cat-A-Lot. So how exactly would I even do it to begin with and what would I even base the DRs on? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop creating invalid speedy deletion requests, or you will be blocked. List of islands of Paris and List of museums in Paris are clearly not test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content. Yann (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Not that I think you care since your clearly a two faced bully but I meant to nominate then as "User intended to create encyclopedic content Page intended to be an encyclopedic article" because they looked like encyclopedic articles. I just used speedy deletion number. It happens. Someone edited the galleries since then though, which is fine. I don't think threating to block me juat because I pushed the wrong number on my keyboard is a good way to handle it though. I've been more then accodimating over this whole thing when other people, you included, clearly haven't been. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• You mis-used speedy deletion. Not because you picked the wrong reason (I really don't care about that), but because you either mis-used or misunderstand the whole reason behind speedy deletion.

Speedy deletion is not there to be speedy. It is there for when things can be speedy. When there is a reason so clear, so unarguable, that no reasonable Commons editor would be expected to have a good reason to disagree. The simple stuff, not the stuff where someone wants it done in a hurry, or they want it done without having to fill out a DR.

A complex deletion is never a candidate for speedy. If there needs to be a case made as to why, that is not a candidate for speedy. As this is several pages, each of which represents significant editor effort to have created, and where there's already a talk: thread running about it, then very clearly these are nothing like any sort of 'simple' deletion that would be uncontested. So they are not speedy candidates. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: P199 had said in two different places that they undeleted the galerries because I hadn't followed the proper precedure by blanking the pages. I could give a crap if you want to argue after the fact that they shouldn't have been deleted to begin with because it wasn't clear case, but P199 never said that I was just going by what they told me when I renominated them for deletion. I certainly don't think it warrants you or Yann's deranged responses either. My bad for listening to admin though I guess? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: (1) if you continue to use abusive language in addressing other editors, as you did here, or do not recognize that what you are saying is abusive (" clearly a two faced bully", "I could give a crap if you want to argue", "deranged responses") I will propose that you be blocked for this. If you are not in a mood to work decently with other people, take a break before one is forced on you. (2) What Andy writes above about speedy deletions (vs. DRs) is exactly correct. And blanking a page when nominating it for deletion is almost always wrong. I can't think offhand of a real-world case where it is correct, but I suppose there might be one (e.g. the page consisted of nothing but ethnic slurs, gibberish, etc.). - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Look through my recent edit history. I was actually taking a break. The only readon I'm here is because Yann threatened to block me and Andy Dingley went after for no reason. I kind of have to respond if an admin is going to threaten me on my talk page though. Otherwise I'd be off minding my own business right now.

Re "blanking pages." I've said it before but that has how people were doing it when I first started editing and looked into it at the time. I don't plan on doing it that way again now that I know its an issue though. So TLDR: I did something because other people were doing it that way and I stopped doing it after someone said something about it. I don't really see what the problem is there. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• You did not "take a break". A couple of days ago you speedy-deleted a large gallery and this is still the fallout from that. If you want to take a break, then do that; don't post obviously controversial and invalid speedy deletions instead. If you don't appreciate that this is both controversial and invalid, then you shouldn't be posting them at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I've made a few edits in the last couple of weeks, including those sure, but I'm not really doing any editing at this point regardless. And as I've already explained several times there was no controversy about it at the time. Maybe there is now, but I really don't appreciate being treated like the edits were controversial when I originally made them just because a couple of people decided to turn it one after the fact. I totally support not blanking pages and having the speedy deletion guidelines changed to remove galleries. But it's super disingenuous and bad faithed on your end to act it's my issue that the guideline was changed or that I should have somehow known months ago before someone said something about it not to blank pages. Neither one of those things was or is my problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Do you realise yet that you can't add another speedy deletion request to a subject where a full DR discussion has just been closed as keep?

Apart from anything else here, apart from any questions about validity of deletion, advisability or not of blanking content, or any lack of clarity over guidelines, do you not get that part of it? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: 100% full stop Andy, I didn't know about the original DR discussion because JopkeB didn't ping me and P199 never mentioned it they left the message on my talk page. So I thought he had just undeleted the galleries as part of normal editing as an admin or something. I totally agree that it's a bad move to renominate something for deletion that was restored as part of DR though, but I just didn't know about it and Yann did say "Please create a regular DR." Which lead me to think there wasn't one. Sorry, but I can only go off of what other people tell me. I'm not a psychic and if an admin tells me to "create a regular DR" then that kind of makes it seem like there wasn't one and that's it OK to renominate the galleries for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I'd agree that my tone towards Yann and Andy might be a little harsh. But both of them have a pretty established history of making sparious threats and trying to get me blocked over non-issues. There's a point where its clearly just bad faithed badgering on their end. I don't care if Yanns an admin either. He shouldn't be threatening to block people for no reason at the drop of a hat like that. Its just abusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• FYI: Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal: Remove speedy deletion for gallery-specific criteria Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. 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.

for your inacceptable comments in Commons:Deletion requests/List of libraries in Paris. You have been warned multiple times about your language. --Yann (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Someone besides Yann should read through the discussion starting at Andy Dingley's original comment. They went off on a rather abusive tirade towards me about the DR and attacked me over it when Yann was the one who suggested it originally, it was opened by JopkeB, and I supported the galleries being undeleted. My response could have been better but I apologized and struck out that part of my comment after a request by Jmabel. It seems like me and Andy Dingley have mostly worked it out since then to. Per Commons:Blocking policy "blocks are a last resort..."cool-down" blocks are not condoned." So the block is clearly inappropriate since Yann did it as a punitive measure after the fact when things had already been worked out." Decline reason: "After carefully reading the mentioned DR I am convinced, that Adamant1 deserves a long block and Andy does not deserve it. Adamant1 apologized for one sentence, but there were more equally bad sentences. Taivo (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

• Oppose You're still blaming everyone else for what you did. Yes, I invite everyone to read the entire threads. Try Commons:Deletion requests/List of libraries in Paris. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm doing that when I said I should have phrased the comment better and struck it out. I'm not blaming you for how I responded. How I reacted was totally on me. Same goes for using the wrong speedy deletion criteria. I've said several times that I used the wrong criteria. But you did instigate things by going on a verbally abusive tirade about something that I had nothing to do with.

It seems like I can sit here all day, apologize, say I made a mistake, strike my comments out, Etc. Etc. and people will still treat me like I'm deflecting or blaming other people simply because I provided some background information as part of the unblock request. That's all I'm doing here. I'm 100% responsible for my actions though. I just don't think those actions together with the surrounding context warranted Yann blocking me for a month. It just doesn't serve purpose out side of being punitive since this is a non-issue that I don't even disagree with anyone about. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You're still blaming everyone else for what you did.

But you did instigate things by going on a verbally abusive tirade about something that I had nothing to do with.

Except that I did no such thing. This is typical of your behaviour, deflecting and blaming other people for what you did. All of us. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoever goes over this can read your first comment where you repeatedly derided and insulted me in a verbally abusive manor. As well as the multiple times both here and in the original discussion where I said the CSD thing was an honest mistake because I didn't know about the original DR and that I wouldn't have made the edits otherwise. I've also said multiple times that I should have responded better. I'm fully responsible for how I responded to your verbal abuse. The same goes for the edits. So I'm not excusing anything here. Now I'd appreciate it if you didn't leave messages on my talk page against since your clearly not here to contribute in a good faithed, honest way. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This blocked user has asked to be unblocked. Request reason: "Adamant1 apologized for one sentence, but there were more equally bad sentences. @Taivo: I totally agree that I didn't specifically apologize at the time for every comment I made. I had actually planned on writing a more formal apology. But as I told Jmabel I couldn't do any major editing at the time because I was responding on my phone well running errands. It's not my fault that Yann blocked me before I had a chance to though. Although I have said several times since then that I'm fully responsible for how I responded and should have communicated better. That obviously includes (and has to do with) all the comments I made in the discussion since it's what I'm doing the unblock request for. Just to reiterate it, I'm fully responsible for everything I write and shouldn't have responded how I did regardless the message. I don't deserve to be blocked for a month simply because Yann blocked me before I had a chance to say so in the original conversation though. Especially given that I've repeatedly said the comments were wrong and that I shouldn't have made them since then." Blocked editor Please note that trolling or otherwise abusing your ability to edit your talk page will result in that ability being revoked. Administrators If this request is declined, it should be replaced with: {{unblock declined|1=reason for request|2=decline reason ~~~~}} If this request is accepted, it should be replaced with: {{unblock granted|1=reason for request|2=grant reason ~~~~}} Do not unblock users without consulting with the administrator who placed the block, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases. Blocks marked as {{checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a CheckUser.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

--Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)