30 Mar

User talk:Jan Arkesteijn

‎File:Frédéric Soulacroix - Flirtation.jpg
← Older revision
Revision as of 16:54, 30 March 2013
Line 684:
Line 684:

::You need a severe attitude adjustment, since you could hardly make such a statement without either willfully ignoring clear facts or wanting to annoy. If you paid any attention at all to the discussion on the Commons Village Pump you would know that there is no Commons ban on original research. When someone adds a category to an image based on their knowledge of what is seen there, that's very often "original research". You can find the information that would prove that Soulacroix meant to show an early nineteenth century scene in many places, if you don't like Wikipedia, but it's not my obligation to disable my brain and pretend not to know things which I do know in order to placate you. It's sad that you value sterile legalisms, which are often quite irrelevant or inapplicable here, above adding useful information which will enable modern people to understand what historical images meant in their original context. Lacking such information, people can gaze at a historical image and find it beautiful, but quite remote and unconnected with themselves, since they have no idea what is going on or what it was meant to convey (see previous discussion). [[User:Churchh|Churchh]] ([[User talk:Churchh|talk]]) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

::You need a severe attitude adjustment, since you could hardly make such a statement without either willfully ignoring clear facts or wanting to annoy. If you paid any attention at all to the discussion on the Commons Village Pump you would know that there is no Commons ban on original research. When someone adds a category to an image based on their knowledge of what is seen there, that's very often "original research". You can find the information that would prove that Soulacroix meant to show an early nineteenth century scene in many places, if you don't like Wikipedia, but it's not my obligation to disable my brain and pretend not to know things which I do know in order to placate you. It's sad that you value sterile legalisms, which are often quite irrelevant or inapplicable here, above adding useful information which will enable modern people to understand what historical images meant in their original context. Lacking such information, people can gaze at a historical image and find it beautiful, but quite remote and unconnected with themselves, since they have no idea what is going on or what it was meant to convey (see previous discussion). [[User:Churchh|Churchh]] ([[User talk:Churchh|talk]]) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

+
:::Six weeks, why this outburst now? [[User:Jan Arkesteijn|Jan Arkesteijn]] ([[User talk:Jan Arkesteijn#top|talk]]) 16:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

== info request ==

== info request ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jan_Arkesteijn&diff=93609784&oldid=93607221