File talk:Back to the Future.jpg

VHS cover?
How is the poster a VHS cover? It's clearly not...  F i l m F a n  17:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the version in question has the MCA-Universal Home Video logo on the cover. It also advertises closed captioning. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 00:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Film Fan
Today, a new version, which had better, if not brighter, colours. Then Film Fan to the older version (and he/she didn't provide a good reason for the reversion), which looked like an inferior version of the original, mostly because of the reddish-orange colour palette. I reverted him minutes later. As I am in no mood for edit warring, I am starting this discussion on which version should remain. Editors like Diannaa are encouraged to participate. Regards, Jionpedia ✉  15:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The same thing happened with File:Big-fish-movie-poster.jpg two weeks earlier. I've uploaded much better and clearer version and he reverted it stating that it doesn't have original colors. His version was blurry and unclear (well at least for me), and so we edit warred until Diannaa didn't intervened. Right now, we are "fighting" here only because he couldn't upload the new version of the poster on top of the old one, but no, he decided to do it hard way and uploaded it on the completely new page, stating that the existing one doesn't have "poster" in its name. Well, it's very easy to change it yourself if you have file mover rights or if you don't, to ask someone to do so for you. He can't have it his way, because if everyone would do that, then there would be a lot of edit wars because nobody wants to have his work deleted only because certain someone couldn't play it nice. He already reverted me three times, and if Diannaa or any other administrator don't help up with this guy, I'll revert him again, knowing that I will be blocked because of the 3RR. InfamousPrince  16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I already tried talking to User:Film Fan (about the Big Fish poster) and I think his display must be quite different from most, as he says he can't see the road in the current version of that poster. I really couldn't get through to him so I don't know if I would be of any help in this instance either as far as convincing him to desist. Even lengthy blocks don't seem to help in that regard. Please report him for edit warring notice board or let me know on my talk page (if I am around) if he does any more reversions on Back to the Future or Austenland, and he will get blocked. I will drop an edit warring warning on his talk page, as that's required before reporting for 3RR. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the principle of it. I uploaded the new Austenland poster some time ago. There ain't no rule saying you should upload where the previous image was uploaded. I don't care who it is that uploads the poster, I care about it being the right poster. But it riles me that InfamousPrince blatantly DOES care that HE is the one to upload, as he just uploaded the new poster, long after me, over his old poster, replacing my identical upload... based on what exactly? Ridiculously childish. Nothing to back him up. So I reverted it to make a point.


 * Diannaa, I can see the road in the Big Fish poster, I am not blind. It's just not as clear as it was on the original, you know? Nothing wrong with my display or, indeed, eyes.


 * Back to the Future, again. Original colors. When you are reverted, you're meant to discuss if you want to make that change again, yeah? I reverted Jionpedia's new upload. He didn't do that - he uploaded it again, so I reverted again. I don't like posters being over-saturated, but massively desaturated posters just look time-worn. And that poster didn't look time-worn when it was made.  F i l m F a n  21:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you reverted his edit just to make a point, and you are uploading and reverting based on your personal preferences for saturation levels. Not to improve the encyclopedia? -- Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He uploaded a copy that was identical to the version already uploaded. The identical copy that was uploaded out of spite gets deleted, not the already existing version, Diannaa. And I don't make edits based on personal preference. Posters should look like the originals. End of. This new copy doesn't look like the original.  F i l m F a n  23:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was asking about your motivations, not your speculation on other people's motives. But I am pretty sure I have my answer. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have answered, Diannaa, while you have ignored just about everything I have said simply because you dislike me.  F i l m F a n  23:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dislike you!? Dude, nobody's disliking you around here, we (well at least I) don't know you, but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually do dislike you, it's just that you don't have slightest respect for other editors work. You think that you're always right and that other editors are just a bunch of idi*ts. Well believe me, you're not always right and that's supported by the fact that you had this many edit wars with other editors. As I said earlier, it's preferable that you upload the new version of the poster on top of the old one, rather than to just upload a new image name. Yes, there's no guideline telling that everyone should do this, but if the other user has already uploaded before you (in Austenland case, it's User:Noboyo), is it really such a big deal to upload your file on top of that one, huh? It's completely unfair on previous uploaders if the images that they've uploaded are deleted only because someone felt like replacing them with theirs. Believe me, we're all here to improve Wikipedia's film articles, and we can do that only if we know that our work won't be deleted, ever, without a good reason, otherwise nobody would upload images because they would know that they will be deleted because no one is "bothering" enough to upload new ones on top of the existing ones. InfamousPrince  07:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth? We all know the most recent poster is going to be used, so the previous poster is going to be deleted either way. Makes no difference where it's uploaded. And even it if did, so what? This is not about editors and what's fair on them. It's about improving Wikipedia, and uploading a replica of something that's already there is counterproductive and you know it. By the way, for someone like me who doesn't have the ability to move files (I don't who how you go about getting it), it certainly is much simpler to upload under the correct filename than ask someone to move it, and again, you haven't convinced me one bit why I should do it your preferred way.  F i l m F a n  12:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pleasant39529738874 ✉ , do you have anything else to say on the subject before I replace your new upload with the correct version?  F i l m F a n  11:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we don't come to a consensus, it obviously goes back to how it was before you meddled.  F i l m F a n  15:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Film Fan, how would you say about discussing which image to use instead of edit warring? Looking at the logs for File:Big Fish poster.jpg and the history for File:Big-fish-movie-poster.jpg, File:Mickey Virus Official Poster 2013.jpg and this file, I see lots of reversions back and forth, but very little discussion. Edit warring only creates anger, but it doesn't solve the question about which image to use. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's two more examples of questionable uploads. User:Film Fan uploaded File:Behind the Candelabra poster.jpg on May 22. He removed an identical image, File:BehindtheCandelabra.jpg, from the article and tagged it as an orphaned non-free file. Film fan uploaded File:The Fifth Estate poster.jpg on August 19. He removed an identical image, File:Official poster of The Fifth Estate.jpg, from the article and tagged it as a non-free file. These examples are of posters that were identical in every way (colours, saturation, text). As one of the only administrators working with images, I object to these repeated uploads and required deletions of identical images. Editor time is essentially our own resource, and we need to spend it more wisely than this. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an absolute load of crap. I would never upload a duplicate. There have been some cases of replacing slightly blurry images or incorrectly cropped images. I would never waste my time doing the kind of counterproductive nonsense that InfamousPrince does.  F i l m F a n  00:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no reason to lie about this, Film Fan. I double checked these two sets of images very carefully before I posted this, just to be completely sure. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Diannaa. There is no value in uploading duplicates.  F i l m F a n  11:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Diannaa: You should be able to see the file size and dimensions at Special:Undelete/File:Behind the Candelabra poster.jpg. Are the file size, height and width exactly the same as for the current one? If two JPG files look the same and have the same file size and dimensions, then they usually are 100% identical. Just to avoid any doubt.
 * Are the uploads of duplicate images attempts to circumvent WP:FMV/W? At WP:PERM/F, Film Fan wants file mover rights for example in order to add the word "poster" to some files.
 * It's not a big issue, but these changes also mean that you don't see the image in some old revisions of the articles (e.g. Special:PermanentLink/556292968) as the old revisions refer to the old file. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the point, Stefan. If his edit warring and methods are creating extra work for other users and administrators, that's disruptive, and it has to stop. Film Fan, the WP:BRD cycle says that once your edit has been reverted you do not reinstate it. Resumption of the edit war on this file will result in an immediate and lengthy block. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you always so full of threats? The whole point of this thread is to find consensus, no? If there is no conensus, the file that was used prior to the edit war is used. That is the file that I am trying to re-upload. Am I talking a foreign language?  F i l m F a n  16:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see you are right on that point. But you know there's 25 deleted revisions on this file, right? What you can see in the history is only the tip of the iceberg. Edit warring over practically-identical versions of this and all the other files you are edit warring over is such a big waste of everybody's time. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC) If someone would start an actual discussion about the merits of the two versions of the poster presently visible on the file, perhaps we could move forward on a discussion of the content? -- Diannaa (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that's what this discussion was supposed to be. My poster is more like the original. Pleasant's version is decidedly muted. Just look at the iconic text of the title if you doubt me. It's faded and dark, how it never was. The merits of the other poster? Zero. It don't look like that.  F i l m F a n  23:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, was extremely busy. I am ok with the new version, but no personal attacks here, Film Fan.Jionpedia ✉  07:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. No personal attacks, Pleasant8090009933366512783890037638989900444111111111.  F i l m F a n  12:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)