User talk:Zenomonoz

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 3.

Photo from Wiki Commons- Please Restore to Cohen Article

I understand your reason for having me blocked from this article, and won't argue with it at this point. Please note, however, that the photo you removed was uploaded to the article from Wikimedia Commons, where it had been uploaded by the photographer as a free use image. You will find it there. It may be from the same photo series as the previous one, but it is not the same photo otherwise Wiki would not have allowed it. The only difference is that originally, in ignorance of Wiki policy I requested the photo directly from the subject's organization and uploaded it incorrectly. This photo was obtained directly from the photographer who was hired and paid to take it, uploaded by her to Wiki Commons, and is a free-use image according to Wiki policy.

Now that you know (and can easily verify) that the reasoning you gave for this edit, mistakenly supposing it to be in violation of Wiki policy when it is not, I ask you to demonstrate your integrity and unbiased approach by restoring it. Thank you. Truedad21 (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truedad21, please follow the instructions on Wikimedia commons to give Commons the permissions for the photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates – you can either use the form, or copy the email template to do so manually.

In addition, I did not have you blocked, an admin chose to do so. I asked for an administrators opinion on the matter, I did not request a block.

Zenomonoz (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zenomonoz- As I reported above, the photo that you removed (in violation of Wiki policy) was uploaded to Commons by the photographer on February 28, 2025, and therefore already licensed for free use. It is NOT the photos that were previously removed. Those photos are automatically recognized and flagged and cannot be uploaded. The licensing of this photo has already been done... it has nothing to do with me. You have, once again, taken on the role of a gatekeeper rather than a cooperative editor. And once again, I ask you to correct your error. The free-use photo that was uploaded correctly (and removed incorrectly by you) to the article is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Cohen_updated.jpg

What are you going to do about it? Truedad21 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 03:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joan Crawford on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edit

Hi @Zenomonoz. I understand that you and I are currently engaged in a "content dispute" over edits I have attempted to make to the article Conversion therapy. Due to the ineffectiveness of discussion on the talk page of the article, I am following Dispute resolution policies and am seeking a third opinion at WP:3O to try to mediate this process. Thanks, Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katzrockso, it is easier to tag people already on the talk page of the relevant article, as I did. I don't think a 3O will bring many responses. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I am relatively unfamiliar with the specifics of dispute resolution policies on Wikipedia; I was just reading WP:SEEKHELP, which states that "Third opinion is a good fit for small disputes involving only two editors."

In the future I will tag other involved editors. Katzrockso (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]