User talk:Adamant1#top

Don’t come to my talk page if you’re just going to revert your message with a passive aggressive insult. I deleted it because controversial talk pages tend to have discussions that go around in circles and invite trolling. I think most users have a higher standard of what constitutes a good faith request. Asking “why far right” for the 10 millionth time and then having an established user come along with a sarcastic response is not a good sign the discussion is worth allowing to continue. Dronebogus (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Dronebogus}} Fair enough. That certainly wasn't my intention. I don't even necessarily disagree with your reason for reverting it but that doesn't mean other people won't take it as opportunity since you've been warned about not making similar edits before. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I'm coming from the centralized discussion on banning AI images. You seem to be an experienced editor, so I thought I would ask you this: would it be a good idea for me to ask a clarifying question to all "Support" voters and ping them? Is that even allowed? The question I specifically want to ask is:

"Do you support exceptions to this ban for whenever the images are the subject of the article (Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF) and/or when they are used by reliable sources?

I want to ask this because opposing editors like Thryduulf and Prototyperspective continue to assert that support voters want to ban ALL AI images without any exceptions. This seems obviously untrue to me, but it seems like we might as well make it official. Also, I very much appreciate the evidence you linked and the points you have made, Wikipedia doesn't need to become a forum for AI slop. 296cherry (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi. I read through the support votes and 99% of them say they want exceptions. So the closing admin should be able to infer it from the overall discussion. I don't have any experince with Thryduulf but Prototyperspective's MO is to repeatedly lie about how everyone he disagrees with just wants to ban AI images outright. So you'd just be wasting your breath. It seems like him and Thryduulf are really the main, if not, only opposers. At the end of the day it's not the responsibility of the supporters to prove their positions or jump through a bunch of hoops for a small minority of clearly dishonest users. Usually closing admins are good about weighing things fairly and discounting obvious concern trolling. Hopefully someone just reports to them ANU. Prototyperspective is clearly over the line. Maybe wait a few days to see if anyone else calls them out and then leave a comment with the ratio of how many people support it with an exception versus the ones who don't. Then you can ask the ones who don't if they are willing to. That's the way I'd do it. Anything else is just playing their game when there's really no reason to though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks for the advice! 296cherry (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You didn’t just say “you are uploading images of child pornography websites.” You said “uploading screenshots of child phonography [sic] websites or is that not something your [sic] into anymore since Wikipediocracy called you out for it? Lmao” I don’t read WPO so I neither know nor care if anyone there mentioned this specifically. If they did then they need to get a fucking life outside of cyberstalking me. If they didn’t then you can only be referring to the old Wikidrama on Commons I brought up, and conflating it with an unrelated upload in a very dubious way. Either way you don’t just go and bring shit like cyber-harassment and child sexual abuse up after I jokingly pointed out a typo unless you want to start a fight. Dronebogus (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Dronebogus}} I seem to remember that someone brought it up on Wikipediocracy at some point. Regardless, don't waste my time acting like your above stirring up drama or that you give one iota of a shit about harassment. I don't need to be corrected on how to spell a word from someone who spent the last year trying to get me blocked over biennial non-issue crap. You just do the same exact thing Prototyperspective does. You stir up drama, act condescending, and then pretend like your the innocent one. The proper response to this would have been to just acknowledge it and move on. Or better yet, just piss off and ignore the message. You just can't resist an opportunity to act patronizing and then play the victim though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::The fact that you keep getting blocked across both Wikipedia and Commons, most recently in November of 2024, says a lot more than I ever could. Regardless, don’t ping me unless you want me to show up. That’s the point of a ping. I will not be interacting with you further unless you force me to. Dronebogus (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Dronebogus}}

:::{{ping|Dronebogus}} I don't even really contribute to Wikipedia anymore so I don't know what your talking about. It's not like you don't get reported on here every other week or aren't topic banned from multiple things on here and Commons anyway though. The difference is that I don't go looking for drama like you do. So spare me the sanctimony. Just because I pinged you doesn't mean you needed to comment. Let alone in a snide way. But hey if you were just joking, cool. So was I. I'm a bad speller and you upload images of child porn websites to Commons. Hardy har har. Super funny. We done now or do you want to continue stirring up shit for no reason? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)