Talk:Nica's Tempo

Removal of Signal covers
How does removal of these images make this article more informative or better? Is that action making the world of knowledge or the world of Wikipedia a better or safer place? Do you really think someone was faking those album images, which are by a famous photographer who has a Wikipedia article of his own?

Why do you think I'm adding them? To ruin someone's day? To troll? I'm not. I'm trying to makes an informative and accurate and useful article using other people's research; and I'm taking a lot of thought and time and care and proper grammar to do so. There comes a point where enforcement to an Nth degree of the letter of the law violates the spirit of Wikipedia, and I think this is a great example of where that crosses the line. It was a rare album cover (two, actually); one gets the images where one can, and I attributed them: It's a site whose participants clearly know what they are talking about, and supply data available absolutely no place else. The information is very well-reasoned, full of debates by scholars and experts in a rather esoteric field. The author of that site is apparently used as an interview resource by the BBC because of the depth of his knowledge. (I can confirm his credentials, if that matters to you.) It's a grey area that you are putting in black and white. You react as if this is original research or vandalization, and it is clearly neither.

Wikipedia greatly prefers secondary sources, No_original_research and of course this makes sense. I fully respect that, and I hope I have demonstrated my honoring of that in my most recent citations. It is also my understanding that this Wikipedia policy contains common sense provisions, if wary ones, when secondary sources are unavailable. And it's here where I feel this revert (and certain others of yours in our ongoing unfortunate debates) deserves a second consideration and perhaps input from others, which I am fully committed to requesting if needed. I await your explanation, but my hope is that we can work together to improve this page, rather than you simply unilaterally trashing work that actually helps one who might visit it. Perhaps acknowledging the nature of the sources, in case you are really worried that we are going to mislead anybody.

In other words, enforcement would be one thing-- and the depth of your understanding of Wikipedia's rules and regulations impressive-- but enforcing sadism would be another, and all laws can be used in service of that when taken to an absurd extreme. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's the logical extension of rules being used without common sense. (We can zap these images from this talk pages if it's a problem. I just reckon it could help with discussion.)

Please note that I did not revert your edit. I brought it here for debate, and I hope for the full weight of your compassion, maturity and intelligence on the matter. The bot is giving me a week before the orphaned images are deleted. Thank you for your time. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)