User talk:Adamant1

File:A Set of New Years Postcards 1 3 (50729572252).jpg

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:A Set of New Years Postcards 1 3 (50729572252).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

ChemSim (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:BR75625 st david s the cathedral and bishop s palace wales (50635835201).jpg

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:BR75625 st david s the cathedral and bishop s palace wales (50635835201).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

ChemSim (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:John Lennon Mural, Camden Town London (22906552924).jpg

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:John Lennon Mural, Camden Town London (22906552924).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

DesiBoy101 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:BUSI, Adolfo. Mostra nazionale delle bonifiche, Napoli, 1925. (50064601863).jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:BOUCHER, Lucien. Air France -zodiac map-, 1953. (50085957713).jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

TUARON

Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

TUARON 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 gallery, 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.

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:"5 Time Champs" ICP Zore Spie Twick SanFrancisco 49ers Graffiti Art (860084763).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:DTS Rockers Mural by Ironlak (7793117132).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:I'm Back! (3275345313).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Aspire Street Art London.jpg

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Aspire Street Art London.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Aspire Kingfisher Street Art Stockwell London.jpg

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Aspire Kingfisher Street Art Stockwell London.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Aspire Street Art @ Stockwell London.jpg

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Aspire Street Art @ Stockwell London.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Alecldn Street art @ Park Street Croydon 2018 (39544569101).jpg

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Alecldn Street art @ Park Street Croydon 2018 (39544569101).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:2013 recommissioning of three Iranian naval vessels in Bushehr (49).jpg

Latest comment: 17 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

File:2013 recommissioning of three Iranian naval vessels in Bushehr (49).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@A1Cafel: You might want to notify the original uploader since all I did to the file was a superficial crop. It's not my upload though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's the automatic notification from the system. If you don't upload the photo, you can just omit it. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Calzedonia_Group_logos

Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Calzedonia Group logos has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Bruce The Deus (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Admin action

Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Don't revert admin actions unless you are an administrator. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆） ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

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

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Published in" can be different than location shown

Latest comment: 4 days ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Good day. I reverted your edit [1] where you changed the categorization from "Postcards published in New Orleans" to "Postcards of New Orleans". Postcards published in New Orleans can depict places other than New Orleans, and likewise postcards showing New Orleans can be published in places other than New Orleans. For example this postcard shows Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (as categorization noted), not anything in the city of New Orleans. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Likewise, File:Entrada de La VACA cada noche en Mi Vaca Y Yo (8185139933).jpg is a postcard of Venezuela, as that is the location shown. It was published in New Orleans, but does not depict New Orleans. Cheers, -- 18:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I see this was some sort of recategorization involving Category:Postcards published in New Orleans. I have no objection to improving categorization, but this seems to me to have made the situation worse, not better. "Postcards of (place)" generally mean the place seen on the postcard, even if it was published somewhere else (which is very common). I don't think it's useful to lump together postcards showing "place A" with postcards showing places B, C, and D that were printed in place A. Am I missing something? Discussion to improve categorization is always welcome. Thanks for your attention and your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Infrogmation: I'm aware. From what I remember there was a conversation about it awhile back with a pretty clear consensus that we don't want to categorize postcrds by location of publication because it just needlessly overcomplicates things, doesn't make sense for multiple reasons in most instances, and we don't have that information most of the time anyway.

Although there is kind of a work around to that where if thr publisher is based in a particular location we just have a "postcards published by so-and-so" category without the "of wherever" added to it. Then that category is placed in a "postcards of X by publisher" category. I don't think its worth making an exception for one state when your way of doing it isn't how its done anywhere else and there's already agreement that postcards shouldn't be categorized that way. Your just screwing up the exiting system for no reason. I'd also argue that postcards aren't "publications" anyway. So the catrgorize should be deleted. Can you please revert yourself and do that? Otherwise I'll jist do it but you should fix your own mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just as a side to that my internet went out ahile ago so I can't do any major editing right now but I'll do a couple of edits when I can and hopefully that will make what talking about clearer. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I never saw discussion saying "there's already agreement that postcards shouldn't be categorized that way" - agreement by who, when, where, please? "I'd also argue that postcards aren't "publications" anyway." I'd argue very strongly that they are - they wouldn't have notices saying "published by" if they weren't! Note that we already have Category:Publications from the United States with many subcategories both by subnational entity and by type of publication - books, magazines, sheet music, posters, etc; I see no inherent reason that postcards must not be treated the same way. If you object to the way things are categorized, unless you can see that it was simply an obvious error or can site some policy decision that such categorization is not allowed, before unilaterally destroying families of categories I suggest you bring the matter up on Commons:Categories for discussion, or bring it up on the talk page of the person who created the category, or preferably both. I look forward to further discussion at our mutual convenience. Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Infrogmation: I think the original conversation was on the Wikiproject Postcards talk page. Its came up in other places though. I'd look for the specific conversations but I can't because my internets out. I'm not going to do a CfD for something that's redundant, has already been discussed and doesn't make sense anyway though. And if you want a good example of exactly why, you put this postcard in Category:Postcards published in New Orleans. The postcard was "published" by Stan Willis, who lived in New York. He happened to be a shipper for a distributing company and had a PO box in New Orleans. But Again, he lived in New York and its a post card of Caracas. Now you tell me, was the postcard published in New Orleans, New York, or Caracas? Or you are going to say it was published in all three locations all at the same time? You'd have to agree it would be ridiculous to say the postcard was published in New Orleans just because Willias had a PO box there even though he didn't live there and its not a postcard of the place either. So where was it published? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If I got one postcard wrong, thanks for pointing it out; factual corrections are always very welcome. I don't see that as negating the entire concept of postcards being published in particular countries or places. (Where was it published? I'd presume wherever the printing press that mass produced them was located.) As to "published", I'll note that a good part of how Commons determines the copyright of many postcards is related to where they are published. I have started a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Postcards published in the United States - we both seem to be losing a bit of patience with each other, IMO not something good for respected regulars, so IMO feedback from might be a good thing. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Infrogmation: I spend most of my time on here organizing images of postcards and its not just one image. The exact place of publication can't be determine for most postcards and specific categories for it are pointless anyway because the categories for postcard published are already categorized by location to begin with. Your just being tendentius and failing to get the point because you don't work in the area and haven't actually looked into it. Real petty, dishonest way deal with this if I'm being honest. Don't waste my time acting like your willing to discuss things next time if your just going to ignore what I tell you and start a CfD to push your opinion. CfDs don't exist just so you can get your way by derailing things the second you end up being wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I think I'm with Adamant1 here on the substance of this (but, Adamant1 no reason for "you're just being tendentious" etc.). If we can get it down to what company published it, that's worth having. Otherwise, place of publication really doesn't mean much for postcards: it may be very little more than where someone had a P.O. box. We don't even track the country of printing, which means more. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's fair. I think me and Infrogmation of New Orleans mostly worked the more contentious aspects of it out on their talk page. So no harm no foul as far as I'm concerned. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work. Let me suggest that misunderstandings and conflict might have been avoided with a note on either the category talk page or the talk page of the creator of the category before actions to delete/reconfigure categorization - one possible example, you might have left a note on my talk page along the lines of "How about instead of categorizing these postcards "X" way we do "Y" way because (reasons)". As my first notes in this thread above, the first things I saw were you recategorizing media in a way that seemed to me an obvious mistake (recategorizing postcards that did not show New Orleans as "postcards of New Orleans", so that's what I was intially reacting to. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Infrogmation: It was a couple of mostly empty categories that didn't follow conventions. People don't usually talk to the creator or leave a note on the talk page of the categories in a situation like that. Otherwise nothing would get done on here. Let me suggest that you should look into how the things are normally categorized in the area next time before creating your own way of doing it and maybe don't repeatedly revert someone using the rollback tool unless the edits are clearly vandalism. Otherwise your bound to get into a conflict over it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am having trouble composing a reply to you that refrains from snark, so I'll confine myself to stating 2 points: 1)I believe I've already explained my actions, but am willing to defend them at more length if you insist (somewhere other than on your talk page). 2)If we still have some sort of dispute here that needs addressing, I suggest we let disinterested 3rd parties do so, as they'd be much better to deal with it than we seem to be. Ciao. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Infrogmation: I'm good. We both made our points and I fixed it by creating categoried for postcard publishers and companies in Lusiana categories anyway. Nor did respond to the any of points I brought up the CfD even though keep saying your willing to discuss it. So there really isn't anything to say about it as far as I'm concered. I would appreciate it if you retracted the CfD like I requested (and again, you seem to hqve ignored) since its essentially a non-issue now though. But I'm pretty much done with it outside of that myself. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that I replied to all the specific questions you asked on the CfD. If you think there is something I hadn't answered to your satisfaction, please ask there. While there remains something to discuss, IMO the CfD is the best place for it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Infrogmation: OK. I left a comment in the CfD. I'm probably going to mostly leave it there though since I feel like the general discussion about how the postcard industry works is off-topic and that's it not the place for it. It's not like the discussing can't be had somewhere else but I'm not going to waste my time if you can't be bothered to retract the CfD like I asked. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your account has been blocked

Latest comment: 1 day ago42 comments5 people in discussion

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 2 weeks. 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.

A.Savin 08:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user has asked to be unblocked.

Request reason: "The complaint on the noticeboard has been open for multiple days and there was zero consensus to block me over it. In fact was all but ignored including by A.Savin, who has been participating in ANU this whole time. He only decided to block me over after I voted to delete his talk page and it was done minutes after my last comment in the DR about it. As well as also being at the exact same time he removed the page from his profile. So the idea that this has anything to do with ANU complaint is laughable. It's clearly retaliation for me voting in DR as well as my last comment there. As well being blatant involved editing. This should be reverted since there was clearly no consensus for a block and A.Savin should be indefed for clear abuse of the privileges."

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)

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（香港） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

@Barkeep49: See, this is exactly the kind of garbage behavior from administrators that we constantly deal with on here. They could give a crap about involved editing. Let alone is there every any consequences when an administrator does it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chris.sherlock2: This is exactly the kind of bullying crap your defending and giving a free to pass. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not defending this. I also understand you are upset (and I don't blame you) about who blocked you. It should not have been A.Savin. I do agree with the block, however. Please, take some time out for two weeks and come back.

I, personally, feel conflicted here incidentally. I can see that A.Savin is having a hard time, and I'm very sympathetic to how interactions on a Wikimedia project might affect his mental health - this happened to me several years ago. Unfortunately, however, your conduct is a problem and you've been blocked a consequnce of your own actions. Just be thankful Commons is not like the English Wikipedia where I was banned for commenting on a since indefinitely banned users request for adminship! Whilst it might not seem that way, admins here aren't as vicious as the English Wikipedia. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GPSLeo: Can you or another administrator revert this and block A.Savin for abuse of the privilege please? The block is clearly garbage. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that A.Savin should not have performed the block in this situation. But the block is absolutely justified. I can unblock you for that reason and instantly reblock you because I also think the block necessary here. I only did not take action here because I did not have the capacity to go through the thread on the board. GPSLeo (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GPSLeo: What exactly makes the block justified and can you seriously tell me I would have been blocked anyway if A.Savin hadn't of done it? It was sitting there for a week. Know one supported any action and no administrator commented on it even though multiple administrators where involved in the board the whole time. You can't seriously tell me I would have been blocked for it anyway regardless of if A.Savin was the one who did it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You know our admin capacity problem. You started an edit war with an admin over the closure of a deletion request. This is a simple and easy to avoid (renominate instead of revert) policy violation. GPSLeo (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GPSLeo: That's a totally fair point to make. I don't think justifies ignoring the guidelines about not doing involved editing though. Let alone me being blocked for two weeks when are blocks are suppose to be "a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons." People are allowed to disagree about where the line is or what type of edits are involved and which aren't. This was a simple dispute between me and Josve05a about where the line is that would have been resolved on his talk page if he hadn't of immediately reported me to ANU. I was totally reasonable about it. It's not an ongoing issue and blocks aren't suppose to be punitive. So what exactly does blocking me a week later when it's a non-issue, and was a minor one to begin with serve, outside of just being punitive? How exactly is me being blocked a "last resort" for it when the ANU complaint was dead and I moved on to other things? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that you got multiple warnings on different disputes in the past. Giving you another final warning seems worthless. As warnings do not to have any effect, the only alternative for a short block would be a longer or infinite block. So I can only suggest to accept the block and see it as a last warning. If something happens again the block will definitely be longer. GPSLeo (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GPSLeo: Maybe it's just me, but I still think the ANU complaint and block it's based on should both have support from the wider community and have merit to them in the first place. Otherwise there's no point in contributing anymore at that point. I don't disagree that me and Josve05a got in a dispute. Disputes are bound to happen on here sometimes. What I'm contesting here is that the dispute was bad enough to justify a block, let alone a week later when it's a non-issue and know one supported a sanction to begin with. You have to get the difference.

If an administrator had of blocked me at the time or at least when the conversation was still going on, fine. But I dropped and went on to other things, which is the main complaint people make about my behavior. You can't have it both ways where I supposedly need to drop things but then I'm still blocked weeks later for something that's a non-issue when I do. Come on. That's not a fair way to deal with me. Let alone is it going to get me to act better. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adamant1, the block is actually correct. I'm not sure why you thought reopening and reverting that deletion decision was a good idea. Personally, I think the reasoning behind the closure was pretty awful, and whilst I have protested, I'm not going around reopening the thing.

In much the same way that I thought that A. Savin was treated badly with the request to delete his talk page, I say the same to you - if you feel an admin action is egregiously wrong, take it to ANU!

I do, however, protest the person who did the block. I think we need to have a good hard look at their behaviour. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chris.sherlock2: I'm categorically against any kind of involved editing since it just leads to needless drama. This being a good example. Maybe reverting it wasn't the best way for me to deal with that, but I did message Josve05a on his talk page about it but he immediately reported me to ANU instead of replying. Otherwise that would have been the end to it. Say I buy it was a mistake on my end. So what? People are allowed to make bad calls sometimes. It certainly doesn't warrant me being immediately reported to ANU when I was trying to discuss it and then getting blocked a week later just because I comment on a DR. If that was the standard for blocking people on here everyone would be indefed at this point. I'm literally the only one who has to follow such a high bar of perfect behavior on here or be blocked if I don't for some damn reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I need to be clear, and I really don't want to seem like this is personal or that I am against you... but your actions in reopening that deletion are the problem. You do a lot of amazing work on Commons, and you often take on difficult tasks that cause you to be at the centre of controversy. Many times, your difficult decisions are correct.

However, in this case, it's absolutely clear that what you did was unacceptable and nobody was quite sure if you would stop. I also found the closure decision highly problematic, and I was as involved in the discussions around it as anyone else, but in the end all one can do if one feels badly enough about the decision is to take appropriate action. Your actions, though I understand why you took them, just weren't appropriate.

I want you to know that I say all of this with kindness and respect. Without wanting to go into many details, I am happy to share with you that I have ADHD and anxiety and I have in the past found myself in similar situations to the one you find yourself in. In fact, I was likely banned from the English Wikipedia for a rash act caused by a lack of impulse control and forward thinking.

I have noticed you often make rash decisions. I am not suggesting you have my condition, but I do see your actions often have consequences and although you often have made the right decision, you also often make bad decisions that cause others to have to step in to correct. On commons, I have seen that admins here have been extraordinarily patient with you and the fact you got blocked for only two weeks is much better than what might have been meted out to you on a project like the English Wikipedia, which is full of vicious and high minded people who probably have called for your head and indefinitely blocked you by now.

My suggestion is: take the block with grace and try not to make such rash decisions in future. Commons will still be here in two weeks time. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll accept the block if it isn't reverted. There's nothing in the guidelines saying administrators can't have their edits reverted though and I honestly thought it wouldn't be an issue at the time. If I buy that it was, I don't think I should be blocked for two weeks over something that was an honest mistake. Especially considering the personal history between me and the administrator. The ANU complaint was open for a week. All you or anyone else had to do was say what you and GPSLeo said here about it. I probably would have apologized and reverted myself. I don't think I should punished for something that's not against the rules and that I wasn't even given a chance to apologize or fix though. It's just a bad faith, bullying way to deal with people. Your also just encouraging involved editing by letting it stand. As well as making it OK for me to be indefed over a minor non-issue in the future. I might as well not contribute to the project anymore if this is going to be the standard for a block. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

But... I'm not sure we should have to make you aware this is a mistake. Again, I say this with kindness, but you already know that constantly reopening a deletion decision closed by an admin is not acceptable.

I have a life outside of Commons, which is a hobby for me. I'm in the middle of doing a degree involving some fairly complicated subjects around mathematics, I'm in full time employment and look after several teenage children and a currently sick wife, so I hope you understand that I don't have the time to explain to you what should be obvious. I have come to this talk page because I am concerned for how you feel and I obviously disagree with the way you were blocked, and I'm giving you my time because I value your contributions. But I'm honestly not able to always provide this level of attention to matters like this on Commons. I'm also often hesistant to give this level of advise because a. I'm not quite sure how you might take it, and b. I'm not an admin and I'm not always entirely sure how others might perceive my advice on a public forum like the admins noticeboard. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chris.sherlock2: The whole thing happened over a span of a couple of minutes and I was having internet issues at the time. There really wasn't time to think about it in the moment because of how quickly the whole thing happened and him immediately reporting me. That happens sometimes. Like it's cool to block someone as long as the report is filed the second an issue comes up. Come on. Anyway, I'm never not going to make a mistake or do everything 100% perfectly all the time. That's just not how it works. Hope your wife feels better though. I appreciate you taking the time to me the advice even if I disagree about the particulars. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify the timeline here, since it's been misrepresented as a single revert followed by an immediate AN/U report. That's not what happened. The record shows a pattern of repeated reversions of a clearly marked administrative action, despite being informed of the proper venue for review:

22:50 – You reverted the closure
22:56 – You posted on my talk page
23:03 – I re-instated the closure with a note in the edit summary of venue for review and that it was an admin action
23:07 – You reverted the closure again
23:08 – I responded on my talk page, informing you about the proper review venue (topic ban notwithstanding)
23:09 – I re-instated the closure and left a talk page warning that you are not allowed to revert admin actions
23:12 – You replied on my talk page and reverted the closure yet again
23:13 – I reported the matter to AN/U, because I did not want to continue an edit war or block you myself

You were explicitly warned, pointed toward appropriate processes, and chose to ignore all that repeatedly. That context matters. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

it's been misrepresented as a single revert @Josve05a: This whole thing has been one long exercise in you misrepresenting things since we got into on the Village Pump a month ago. That's literally all you do and other administrators do on here. Endlessly misrepresent things while acting like victims. Otherwise be my guest and provide some evidence of when I said it was a single revert? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I did not say you literally used those words. What I said was that it had been misrepresented as such, and that remains accurate. Throughout your responses, you repeatedly framed this as an overreaction to a minor, one-off action. For example:

This was a simple dispute between me and Josve05a about where the line is that would have been resolved on his talk page if he hadn't of immediately reported me to ANU.
Maybe reverting it wasn't the best way for me to deal with that, but I did message Josve05a on his talk page about it but he immediately reported me to ANU instead of replying.
It certainly doesn't warrant me being immediately reported to ANU
The whole thing happened over a span of a couple of minutes

None of these statements acknowledge that you reverted the closure three separate times, that you were explicitly warned not to revert an admin action, that you kept reverting anyway, and that over 20 minutes passed between your first and final reverts, during which I also responded to you and pointed you toward the correct review process.

So while you may not have said the phrase "a single revert", your wording clearly gives the impression that this was a momentary issue blown out of proportion, and that’s what I was correcting with the timeline above. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You repeatedly framed this as an overreaction to a minor, one-off action. @Josve05a: Where have I ever reverted an administrator closing a DR outside of this? Even if we reverted each other three times that's pretty run of the mill for disputes on here. It's certainly not at all out the ordinary for users to revert each other a couple of times and then discuss it on one of their talk pages. That's literally how 99% of the confrontations go on here and rarely, if ever, do they result in one of the users involved in it being blocked.

20 minutes isn't that long of a time either. Most conversations take days, if not weeks, to resolve and again, most of the time no one is ever reported to ANU or blocked if it takes them a while to resolve the problem. That's why I say it was minor issue that was blown out of proportion, because everything about it was literally how every other confrontation usually goes on here. Thanks for admitting I never said it was one revert though ;)

None of these statements acknowledge that you reverted the closure three separate times I said I reverted you 3 times in the ANU complaint. I wasn't aware that I had to repeat it in every conversation I have or comment I make about this going forward or I'm being dishonest though. My bad. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. Maybe it's just me but I don't think a conflict taking 20 minutes to be resolved is a huge issue worthy of a two week block. Different strokes for different folks though I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is, frankly, an atrocious decision. I also don't disagree with the block, but the person who is giving it... what on earth? This is just leading to protests of unfairness. We want admin decisions to be seen to be fair both in reality and perception. This block is just causing major drama. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GPSLeo: How about this as what I think would be a reasonable compromise since people should be allowed to make mistakes. I say reverting the close probably wasn't in the best of form and that I won't do it again after what I think is some fair feedback from you and Chris.sherlock2 (that could have just been made in the ANU complaint without the block having to come into it). You revert the block since I'm saying the original edits probably shouldn't have been made in hindsight and continuing to block me just encourages administrators to do involved editing? Which I'd like to believe your against. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Meta-Wiki personal attacks

The user has now escalated the dispute by making personal attacks against the blocking admin on Meta-Wiki. The relevant comment is at meta:User talk:A.Savin#Comment and includes remarks such as:

"Commons admins are their own special kind of paranoid snow flakes."
"You're clearly into conspiracy theories though. Apparently everyone is out to get you."
"You're clearly not capable of that level of self reflection though."

I’ve posted a request for Meta admin intervention here: m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#User engaging in personal attacks across projects.

This behavior seems to reinforce the case for declining the unblock and revoking talk page access, as it shows ongoing hostility and unwillingness to engage civilly across projects. — --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The unblock needs to be decline regardless, but I don't think that the talk page access should be revoked as the comments are being made on meta. If hostile commentary is made on commons, then protect their talk page and only then. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

P.S. had this block not been made by the admin who made it, the blocked user might not be so strident. There's no way of telling, but it highlights why involved admins should not be taking admin decisions. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of views on the block itself or who issued it, harassment is not the way to go about things. Continued personal attacks across projects only undermine any legitimate concerns and further justify the sanctions. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I emailed A.Savin and asked him he would be willing to reduce the block to a week, which I'm totally allowed to do. He subsequrntly emailed me back, went on a tirade, and accused me of blackmail. The idea that I'm the making personal attacks or harrassing him is laughable. A.Savin is just a paranoid cry bully who has absolutely no business being an admin. There's absolutely no reason he should have the privelage if he going to go off on users and throw around accusations just because they email him about a block. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adamant1 - I think that was a little unwise. I know you probably didn't mean to do so, but this can be seen as trying to get around process, which is to only comment on your talk page. However, I'm clearly concerned about the email response you received, and I have sent you a Commons email to send me a copy. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I sent you a copy of the email. My original email is at the bottom of it. I don't see how it's "getting around the process" to email the blocking admin about a block when the guideline literally says "Alternatively, they may request unblocking with an appropriate reason via e-mail to the blocking administrator or another administrator." Apparently that's how low the bar is on here though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In all honesty, I appear to be in error on this one. I did not read the bit you quote, so you were quite within your rights to have emailed the admin. I apologise for my own misunderstanding of the appeals process. I will have a look at the email when I get a chance. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is disputing their right to email the blocking admin. The issue is the content and tone of their remarks towards the admin on their meta-talk page, which a Meta-Wiki admin has since removed for being, quote, "particularly egregious". That action speaks to the seriousness of the behavior. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Josve05a: A.Savin was when he decided to go off on me and accuse me of black mail for emailing him. Your just ignoring his side of this while acting like I'm the only doing anything here. Why not be fair about this and acknowledge that A.Savin shouldn't have treated me that way just because I asked him to reduce the block instead pf acting like I'm just making rude comments randomly for no reason? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Off-wiki communication is not something I will comment on without clear evidence. That may fall within the purview of the Trust and Safety team at the WMF if needed. Regardless, it does not give a free pass to continue personal attacks or uncivil behavior on-wiki. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I sent Chris.sherlock2 a copy of the email. I'd appreciate it if you at least acknowledge it was wrong of A.Savin to treat me that way when, or if, Chris.sherlock2 confirms that he falsely accused me of black mailing him. I don't think it should have to be dealt through trust and safety given that it directly relates to an administrative action on Commons and me emailing him about one. You guys have absolutely no issue what-so-ever admonishing or sanctioning users over the slightest issue regardless of how little evidence there is. But for some reason when it's admin doing something your not willing to comment without a ton of evidence and the only way to deal with it is through the U4C or some other off site mechanism. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's true that off-wiki attacks are not exempt from scrutiny. As COM:OWH makes clear, hostile or unsolicited contact outside preferred channels can be an aggravating factor. If needed, concerns can be sent privately to me at gladjonatan

outlook.com or to VRT at info-commons

wikimedia.org. But regardless of that, it does not justify continuing personal attacks on-wiki. That behavior needs to stop. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have read the email, and it was very incivil. Per the unblock guidelines, we specifically encourage blocked users to email the blocking admin. Admins who block should expect such emails, and should respond with respect and kindness. This is not what A.Savin did, IMO.

I can't do much about the email, so I think it should be forwarded to VRT. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK. What's VRT though (I assume you don't mean the Volunteer Response Team)? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did mean the Volunteer Response Team. Forwarding the email there ensures it's archived properly and accessible to others with the same permissions, rather than being limited to private exchanges between individual editors. VRT members are bound by a non-disclosure agreement, which helps protect all parties involved.

That was just a suggestion, if you do not wish to involve Trust and Safety, we would still need some way to verify your accusations, and VRT is one of the few venues that such communications could be shared with (given that we don't have an ArbCom). Perhaps a bad suggestion, but I was providing an olive branch to confirm the accusations thrown around. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a good idea. I also think it would be best, Adamant1, to let the 2 week block run its course. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm kind of busy IRL right now but I'll think about doing that. @Josve05a: I have zero problem dropping it in the meantime outside of commenting on the U4C when there's a reason to but I'd appreciate it if you told A.Savin to do the same since this is only an issue because he blocked me for voting to delete his user page. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Sufer MTA CA ICP SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (3360092045).jpg

Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Sufer MTA CA ICP SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (3360092045).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (3361738493).jpg

Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (3361738493).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Warf "Aerosol Detail" SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (832621122).jpg

Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Warf "Aerosol Detail" SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (832621122).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Reyes MSK AWR SeventhLetter SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (2697083765).jpg

Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Reyes MSK AWR SeventhLetter SanFrancisco Graffiti Art (2697083765).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:San Francisco, CA street art (53523253349).jpg

Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:San Francisco, CA street art (53523253349).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Pejorative graffiti on a phone box outside the Mission Church, San Francisco.jpg

Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Pejorative graffiti on a phone box outside the Mission Church, San Francisco.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Geoffroi 18:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

FYI

Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Just to let you know, I've just sent an e-mail to Trust & Safety (ca@wikimedia.org) to complain about unapproved disclosure of private information: in this case, disclosure of content of my wikimail to you, as well as sharing the entire e-mail text with a 3rd user without my approval. In my opinion, this quite clearly violates UCoC 3.1. -- Harassment, in particular the subsection "Disclosure of personal data (Doxing)". --A.Savin 21:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@A.Savin: The only thing I see on there about sharing private information is "sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address." @Chris.sherlock2: can confirm this but the copy I sent him didn't include any of those things in the email. Plus I didn't post it publically, which is kind of required. So I don't see how it's doxing. I don't think doxing or harassment would include just sharing the paragraphs in the email where you accused me of blackmailing you privately with someone else. I know you like to bully people and then act like your the one being victimized though. So whatever helps you justify the trashy way you treat people on here.

I'm not going to waste my time on it, but it's not like you haven't violated essentially every point on there multiple times yourself anyway. That said, Trust and Safety is free to email me about it. I'm more then willing to explain the situation to them and they can decide if sharing a paragraph from an email that doesn't contain any identifying information privately with another user is doxing or not. BTW, I also sent a copy of it to U4C, again, without any identifying information. So I'm sure I'll hear about it from either them or Trust and Safety if it's doxing or there's any other reason I shouldn't have privately shared the email. I don't think I will though. If I were to guess it's a non-issue and your just clutching at straws to deflect from your own behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was the recipient of the email. No private information was disclosed. In all honesty, this sounds like you are threatening Adamant1. You were the blocking admin, and so one of the things you can expect is to be emailed directly about your block - it's in the appeal guidelines. I read the email you were sent, and it wasn't in any way hostile, and it certainly wasn't trying to harass you. Your response could have been - thanks Adamant1, but I would prefer to keep this on-wiki. That's not how you responded. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

BTW, did I mention I only shared the email privately and that there was no identifying information in it? Man, your sure trying way to hard. I really don't see how you think this is an effective strategy. Whatever floats your boat though. I guess we'll find out if it is or not in a few days lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Talk page access restored...

Latest comment: 5 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

... but with strong advice to sit out the block (two weeks is really not an eternity).

To clarify: I had already handled the situation by removing an ambiguous remark that could be read as an attack; I had done so without removing talk page access, and felt that I had already handled this as an admin. A.Savin came along and overrode that without consulting me. Given that I had already remarked that A.Savin was probably not the appropriate person to have blocked here in the first place, I find it quite objectionable that he should take it upon himself to add further conditions to the block.

Please, Adamant1: I am granting you talk page access so that you can reply to direct questions. I suggest that you do not make further attempts to contact A.Savin during the time you are blocked: it is more than obvious that he will not unblock you. Please during the time you are blocked, refrain from discussing his or anyone else's conduct. Otherwise, I will have to take that talk page access away myself. I know this will be unsatisfactory to you, but you are going to have to live with it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The admonition not to comment on others' conduct includes my own, and includes both favorable and unfavorable comment. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply