User talk:Adamant1

---

ANU

See COM:ANU#Adamant1. Yann (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Kuntz.jpg

Hello Adamant1,

if you want to nominate several files, please actually list them in the deletion request, don't just write something like I'm also nominating all other images of stamps in Category:Stamps by Axel Bengs for the same reason like here. The VisualFileChange gadget (Help:VisualFileChange.js) can assist with listing multiple files. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. No problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Stationers

Was there any consensus that Category:Stationers refers only to people, not companies? I ask because of the effect on File:Seattle - Denny-Coryell Co. - 1900.jpg, which was more of a manufacturer of stationery than it was a stationery store. Same would be true (even more emphatically) of Category:Lowman & Hanford Stationery and Printing Company, though I see I only thought to put it under Category:Printing companies of the United States, and nothing about stationery. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see a discussion about it or feel the need to create one since Wikidata has different entries for stationers shops and stationery shops. Plus, it doesn't make sense to have both in the same category. What exactly would I need to get a consensus on? That images of shops can go in a separate category then images of people do it as a profession? That's already how we do things. I might have just missed it, but I don't see anywhere that the person who originally created Category:Stationery shops and redirected it got a consensus to do so either. Anyway, with places like File:Seattle - Denny-Coryell Co. - 1900.jpg it would probably be fine to put it in a different category other then Category:Stationery shops.

Although it's worth mentioning that the term "stationery" is an extremely broad term to start with and there isn't really a bright line as to if a place/person produces versus sells it. From what I've seen a lot of stationers and stationery shops do both. Just like there isn't really a clear line between a postcard publisher/seller and a postcard manufacture. In same cases cardboard manufacturers just sold the cardboard to photographers and the the photographer printed the images on them. In others the photographer sent negatives to the cardboard manufacturer and they did the printing. In others, the photographer both created the cardboard and printed the image on it. So we just do the best we can when categorizing postcard publishers, photographers who sold postcards, and postcard manufacturers. The important thing IMO is just keeping images of the professional people in separate categories then the companies.

In this case there's clearly a huge difference between a guy who say sells pens door to door and say Category:Cheap Lab Store. To the point that IMO it would be nonsensical to put images of both in the same category. That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to have something like a Category:Stationery manufacturing companies for large corporate stationery producers like File:Seattle - Denny-Coryell Co. - 1900.jpg. I think that would solve the issue. Although I'd love to have what should or shouldn't go in a stationery category clarified beforehand since it seems to be way to general at the moment. Anyway, any thoughts? Ideas? Criticism? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I do think the additional category for stationery manufacturing companies is probably the way to go. I'm not even certain if the Denny-Coryell storefront sold retail, and while Lowman & Hanford had a retail outlet, it was only one of several buildings they had. I know less about other cities in this respect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hhhmmm, well OK. I don't really know what else to say about it then. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or whatever I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Another rando user writes...

After seeing you dismissing the input from a veteran Commons contributor as "some rando user on Commons who says they know something", I think I'll bow out of our discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Asd.gif, and I'd politely suggest altering your comment there before the user logs in and sees it.

I know that Commons:Civility is only an essay over here, but this kind of interaction does affect where people choose to put their time. Belbury (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but am I suppose to magically know he's a veteran Commons contributor or is that fact suppose to automatically make his opinion more authoritative then multiple IP lawyers? Either way, all he told me was that he signed up for a list 20 years ago. That sounds like a rando Commons user to me. It's sure not "I have a law degree and a history in litigating IP cases." Sorry, but I thought we here to figure out the law is. Not just default to whatever opinion comes from the user in the conversation who was lucky enough to sign up for their account first or signed up for a mailing list lmao. Really, my guess is that your just using my comment as an excuse to bow out because you don't have a good answer to my question about the IP lawyers. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's supposed to magically know anything, we're just supposed to try to be polite and respectful to other people on here.

We're trying to work out what Unicode documents mean for Commons copyright policy, with a lawyer's Forbes article for reference. Dismissing someone from that conversation for not having as much authority as the Forbes writer doesn't make much sense; you yourself have no more authority than that either, you're just someone who's read a Forbes article. Belbury (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I don't disagree with that. It's not a one way street though and it was insulting to me for Prosfilaes to ignore the articles and act like they were right simply because they signed up for a list. I wasn't dismissing him from the conversation though. I was dismissing the idea that he knows more then multiple IP lawyers just because he signed up for a list. I assume you get the difference. I never claimed I knew more then anyone either. That's why I've cited the articles multiple time instead of just going off about my personal opinions. I'm not the one claiming I have some special knowledge about the subject just because of some ridiculous, meaningless criteria like how long I've had my account or what websites I signed up for either. You and Prosfilaes are. So maybe take a look in the mirror dude. Sorry I dismissed Prosfilaes and acted like an authority by saying IP lawyers probably know what they are talking about though lmao. I swear people on here love to get super offended over the smallest, most biennial non-issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well, like I say, I'd urge you to read and apply Commons:Civility, it really does affect where people choose to put their time, and how seriously they take you. Belbury (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And I'd urge to you read and apply Commons:Assume good faith next time instead of assuming I'm acting in a way that I'm obviously not. Like I said, this isn't a one way street. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)