File talk:Benedict X.jpg
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2022 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2022 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| This file was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2022 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
portrait Silvester III vs Benedict X[edit]
Good morning, You're asking me to stop asking for deletion. That is. On the other hand, I ask you (because I don't know how to do it and you seem to know the method), to act so that this portrait can no longer illustrate Pope Silvestre III on Wikipedia. The sentence "this information is questioned" is not sufficient to break this link, because it is false. The sentence should be: "this information is false". All the proofs of the error are there: https://www.alamy.it/papa-antipapa-benedetto-x-nato-giovanni-fu-papa-dal-1058 -al-1059-la-basilica-di-san-paolo-fuori-le-mura-roma-italia-image448503796.html and https://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Paul_Nave/index.html. This portrait is that of Antipope Benoit X and not Silvestre III. So you have all the elements to act. then, if nothing happens, I will be obliged to request the deletion again, the major disruption being that the error is not repaired. Best regards. Sumenol (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol Multiple users have asked you to request a rename. Please read the page I linked to, then request a rename. Brianjd (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's impressive how much process paralyzes action. I told you explained and proved that there was a mistake, it is obvious, and I will not waste my time in research to understand complicated procedures for me (I assume my incompetence on this point). It doesn't matter if it's me or someone else who takes the steps. From the moment when, after verification, someone is competent to act, in an effective and definitive manner, he must do so. This is what happened a short time ago. And we move on. Why make it complicated when it can be simple. Sumenol (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol A lot of people think a lot of things are obvious; if everyone just acts on what they think is obvious, we will have chaos. That’s why we have these processes.
- You say I will be obliged to request the deletion again. That means you are willing to pursue this issue. If you are willing to pursue this issue, you should follow the proper process. Brianjd (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- But no, it will not be chaos (immediately the big words ...)., because I do not give an opinion, but I bring two links showing incontestably that what I say is true. This is what the whole Wikipedia building is based on. It suffices for those who know how to look at them and to rectify them, which can be done immediately. It is much more useful to use your time and energy to do this than to answer me, because the problem is not me, as you seem to think... Art of making a false polemic when the solution is just a click away. But me, I don't know how to do it. Sumenol (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol If you have a standard setup, you should be able to click ‘More’ → ‘Move’ at the top of the file page and fill out the form. Select reason 3 and enter a new name. Brianjd (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain to me the procedure that I could not guess. This method is actually more effective than telling me what to do without telling me how, or even threatening me (no comment). Normally it is modified. But I repeat that anyone could do it for me once they had verified the evidence. Sumenol (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol You mistakenly moved this talk page instead of requesting a move of the file itself. I have fixed that. Brianjd (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- I told you that I didn't know how to do it... Sumenol (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol You mistakenly moved this talk page instead of requesting a move of the file itself. I have fixed that. Brianjd (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain to me the procedure that I could not guess. This method is actually more effective than telling me what to do without telling me how, or even threatening me (no comment). Normally it is modified. But I repeat that anyone could do it for me once they had verified the evidence. Sumenol (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol If you have a standard setup, you should be able to click ‘More’ → ‘Move’ at the top of the file page and fill out the form. Select reason 3 and enter a new name. Brianjd (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- But no, it will not be chaos (immediately the big words ...)., because I do not give an opinion, but I bring two links showing incontestably that what I say is true. This is what the whole Wikipedia building is based on. It suffices for those who know how to look at them and to rectify them, which can be done immediately. It is much more useful to use your time and energy to do this than to answer me, because the problem is not me, as you seem to think... Art of making a false polemic when the solution is just a click away. But me, I don't know how to do it. Sumenol (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's impressive how much process paralyzes action. I told you explained and proved that there was a mistake, it is obvious, and I will not waste my time in research to understand complicated procedures for me (I assume my incompetence on this point). It doesn't matter if it's me or someone else who takes the steps. From the moment when, after verification, someone is competent to act, in an effective and definitive manner, he must do so. This is what happened a short time ago. And we move on. Why make it complicated when it can be simple. Sumenol (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
