|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
TUSC token 1a50ffb259c4abac6e9d1e16bd3500e5
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Regarding the matter of File:Benjamin Britten 1945.jpg
Hi, Xover. You asked, "wouldn't it have been better to just provide that crucial information right off the bat (or even at any of the times that I asked you for that information)"? First off, all information were already on the page, "|Source=Bibliothèque nationale de France [http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b77203161] |Author=Publisher: Boosey & Hawkes" and those that were not I have already provided in the speedy tag. You yourself stated on the Talk page that "I see no reason to doubt the original uploader's claims." So how do you expect me not to think you knew and believe Boosey & Hawkes was the publisher? You did not assert at the start that you thought Bibliothèque nationale de France was the publisher, neither did you ask for proof that Boosey & Hawkes was the publisher (which was readily there in the form of the uploader's claim and in his provided source), so how was I supposed to take a continued defense that seemed to me changing in tack here and there ("the uploader was correct" -> "France is the country of origin" -> "Bibliothèque nationale de France is the publisher")? Only at our third exchange did you make clear the Bibliothèque nationale de France as publisher angle. I expected an experienced user to go look through the information present on the image page and the sources given, and it was frustrating to think that someone who should have done so chose not to do it.
Regardless, all in all, it might be just our faults at work here, with a dash of miscommunication. I still hold that one should check everything before participating in a deletion process. I apologise for any brusque tone I may have affected over the course of the event, but I would like ask you to put yourself in my shoes as described above and consider the effect the actions of the other party would have caused in the first place. Jappalang (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jappalang. Thank you for your explanation above. I particularly appreciate your apology, and I offer in return a blanket apology for any faults on my part.
Two clarifications: 1) in the course of investigating this I did not find the Details link at gallica.bnf.fr that you subsequently provided, and where Bibliothèque Nationale provided any other publisher information than itself. With that detail information the situation became obvious, but without it the appearance was that the Bibliothèque Nationale claimed to itself be the publisher (which I might, for the sake of argument, agree to be somewhat dubious, but which absent evidence I had no grounds to challenge). 2) I believed I had made clear my reasoning by the act of challenging your assertions that the country of origin was the UK and that the publisher was Boosey & Hawkes. In this I thought it implicit in describing them as “assertions” that I was looking for the evidence on which you based those assertions. I might also mention that I was always ready to adjust my stance in response to such evidence: as I said, your reasoning was good, but without evidence it wasn't, to me, persuasive.
In retrospect it is apparent that I did not communicate this sufficiently clearly, and since responsibility for understanding is incumbent on the author, I can only apologise for not expressing myself clearly.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to explain, and—momentary bouts of frustration aside :-)—for your grace in helping resolve this amicably and constructively. --Xover (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
|File:Bombing in Oslo 2011 Infographic, english.svg 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.