File talk:SentimentalJourney.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Contested deletion
[edit]
Not a duplicate (different editions; original is from 1768), and the purported duplicate is even a non-free modern cover. @Zackmann08: Did you even check these files before throwing on the speedy? Even a casual glance at the two shows them to be wildly different. This clearly doesn't fall under CSD F1. --Xover (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Xover: I did check them. This file is an invalid image pro-porting to be the cover of the book. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: That's not a valid rationale under CSD F1. Nor even under any of the speedy criteria. And if your intent is to quibble over "title page" versus "cover" then go right ahead (you don't work much with 18th-century literature I take it?), but that's not a valid rationale for deletion under any deletion process on Wikipedia, nor a reasonable use of the word "invalid". In fact, the guideline for infoboxes for books is to use the first edition if possible, which would make File:A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy.jpg, that you uploaded, unused and hence should be deleted per the NFCC. --Xover (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Xover: not sure why you are being so accusatory and insulting. I may well have made a mistake here but my efforts were in good faith unlike every comment you have made. I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Sorry it personally offended you. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: My apologies if I came across that way: I certainly did not in any way intend to imply that you have acted in anything but good faith! Nor did I intend to insult you, and if you'll point out just exactly where I did that I'll happily retract it! (really! not intended, and happy to strike it if you'll point it out!)However, your speedy here was hasty and on obviously incorrect grounds, which makes it an easily avoidable mistake. If I am a little sharp above it's because an editor with 100k+ edits and 6+ years experience really shouldn't be making such mistakes. New and inexperienced editors, sure, this stuff is impenetrable without being familiar with how Wikipedia works. But once you've racked up the sheer volume of bragging rights I see on your user page there is no longer any excuse for so misunderstanding the criteria for a F1 speedy, or the non-free content criteria (hint: criteria 1), or, for that matter, the decorum of putting notification templates on the talk page of deceased Wikipedians.Everyone makes mistakes (I make more than my fair share of them, certainly!), so I really don't want to blow this one out of all proportion; but I do think a sound trouting was in order here.PS. I'll go ahead and assume that your direct accusation of bad faith on my part above ("…in good faith unlike every comment you have made.") is mere clumsy phrasing combined with—quite understandable under the circumstances—annoyance. --Xover (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- WP:TWINKLE automatically puts the notifications on talk pages. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: My apologies if I came across that way: I certainly did not in any way intend to imply that you have acted in anything but good faith! Nor did I intend to insult you, and if you'll point out just exactly where I did that I'll happily retract it! (really! not intended, and happy to strike it if you'll point it out!)However, your speedy here was hasty and on obviously incorrect grounds, which makes it an easily avoidable mistake. If I am a little sharp above it's because an editor with 100k+ edits and 6+ years experience really shouldn't be making such mistakes. New and inexperienced editors, sure, this stuff is impenetrable without being familiar with how Wikipedia works. But once you've racked up the sheer volume of bragging rights I see on your user page there is no longer any excuse for so misunderstanding the criteria for a F1 speedy, or the non-free content criteria (hint: criteria 1), or, for that matter, the decorum of putting notification templates on the talk page of deceased Wikipedians.Everyone makes mistakes (I make more than my fair share of them, certainly!), so I really don't want to blow this one out of all proportion; but I do think a sound trouting was in order here.PS. I'll go ahead and assume that your direct accusation of bad faith on my part above ("…in good faith unlike every comment you have made.") is mere clumsy phrasing combined with—quite understandable under the circumstances—annoyance. --Xover (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Xover: not sure why you are being so accusatory and insulting. I may well have made a mistake here but my efforts were in good faith unlike every comment you have made. I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Sorry it personally offended you. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08: That's not a valid rationale under CSD F1. Nor even under any of the speedy criteria. And if your intent is to quibble over "title page" versus "cover" then go right ahead (you don't work much with 18th-century literature I take it?), but that's not a valid rationale for deletion under any deletion process on Wikipedia, nor a reasonable use of the word "invalid". In fact, the guideline for infoboxes for books is to use the first edition if possible, which would make File:A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy.jpg, that you uploaded, unused and hence should be deleted per the NFCC. --Xover (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
